Podcast: Unlawful Killing

Unlawful Killing

Series 1 | Episode 1: Policing (Part 1) 

From Blair Peach to Chris Kaba, we explore the history of INQUEST and state violence in Britain

Release Date: 16 November 2023

Season: 1

Episode: 1

Presenters: Lee Lawrence and Lucy Brisbane

Guests / Oral History interviewees featured: Celia Stubbs and Prosper Kaba

Producers: Leila Hagmann and Naomi Oppenheim

Consultant Producers: Adam Zmith and Tash Walker (Aunt Nell)

Music: Dave Okumu

Content warning: Police violence, death, racism

Episode length: 24:40

Transcript

LB: This episode contains stories about police violence, death and racism.

MUSIC.

LL: You're listening to Unlawful Killing: Death, Resistance and the Fight for Justice.

LB: A podcast by INQUEST, the only charity fighting alongside families bereaved by deaths involving the state, including police, prison, and mental health services.

LL: I'm Lee Lawrence, advocate and son of Cherry Groce, who was shot by the Metropolitan Police, which sparked the 1985 Brixton uprisings.

LB: And I'm Lucy Brisbane from INQUEST. In this series, we're diving into our 40-year history of campaigning. We'll be doing this through conversations with those at the centre of these stories.

MUSIC

LL: Episode One: Policing (Part One). CS: And at the beginning of the first inquest, we picketed 100 police stations throughout England as a protest, that was before the first inquest, the night before it opened in October.

MUSIC

LB: We'll be spending the first two episodes talking all about policing. At INQUEST we keep track of all the deaths in police custody and following police contact in England and Wales. At the time of making this podcast, we've recorded almost 2000 deaths of people at the hands of the police since 1990. In this episode, we're going to take you right back to one of the police killings that led to INQUEST being set up - Blair Peach.

LL: And what happened to my Mum, Cherry Groce, which we will also be looking at through the series.

LB: Right now, obviously, there's this massive focus on the Metropolitan Police and the issues around institutional racism, misogyny, homophobia, and there's this huge spotlight on policing in London and policing more generally around the UK. People are really interested, they're asking questions about defunding the police. We've had the Casey Review, which made massive criticisms, obviously, that followed the murder of Sarah Everard by a police officer. And all that came, I think really importantly, shortly after the killing in America, of George Floyd, which was a huge cultural moment, nationally, and internationally. But of course, we're in this work. We're doing it all the time. We know the history goes back much longer than just back to 2020.

LL: Absolutely. As you know, Lucy, we've been having these conversations for a very long time, decades. Right, when my mum was shot in 1985, when we had the Brixton uprising and, and the protests around what happened. When it was 1981, the Brixton uprisings then, and then we had the Lord Scarman Report, which concluded indiscriminate use and disproportionate use of stop and search powers was the catalyst for the Brixton uprisings, which was targeted, you know, the SAS laws were targeted towards young black males in particular in the community. So, these conversations have been going on since then. And I feel it's only now it's been seen by more the wider public and the wider community that the police can do wrong, right, and it allowed for all of those stories from the past to be validated in the present.

LB: Yeah, so there's this big narrative shift happening all around us and this big focus on the issues that we've been talking about for a long time. I think a lot of what we hear is, oh, but this only really happens in America. And maybe people are starting to realise that it's actually on our doorstep.

LL: Especially after George Floyd, because again, I think that was the first time that we had mass campaigning over here and all over the world for something that happened in America. But then people, families of loved ones who have been murdered by the police or killed by the police saw that as an opportunity to remind everybody that this does happen over here, too.

LB: And while we've got that kind of broad community interest, at the same time, we have a government who wants to increase policing powers. You know, the Casey Review concluded that the police were institutionally racist, again. But Mark Rowley, the Met Police Commissioner has refused to accept that and actually, are we seeing the change that people are asking for?

MUSIC

LB: While this episode focuses on the Metropolitan Police in London, this is a case study of broader institutional failures across British policing. INQUEST has worked with families whose loved ones have died at the hands of the police all over the country, from West Midlands Police to Greater Manchester Police. They include Leon Patterson, Mikey Powell, Dalian Atkinson, Kelly Hartigan-Burns,

LL: Neal Saunders, Yassar Yaqub, Sean Fitzgerald, Shane Bryant, Leon Briggs.

LB: Those are just a few of the recent deaths from around the country.

LL: This is a national problem. Policing in Britain is at crisis point.

MUSIC

LB: We want to take you right back to the death of Blair Peach. He was hit over the head and killed by a police officer in Southall in West London on the 23rd of April 1979. Blair, along with thousands of others, was there demonstrating against the National Front. His partner, Celia Stubbs, has been campaigning for justice ever since.

CS: So, I went off to work with friends and he went with his friends who, one of them was a witness at the inquest, she saw him hit, they went earlier. And we were to meet up but we never met up, because of the way the police cordoned off the town. And even they were cordoned off in the Broadway. I arrived, and I was on the East and in fact, we were chased by police on horses through Southall Park, seemingly for no reason. We got separated, but I was another one we decided to just go back to Hackney about quarter to eight. And that's what we did. And that was about the time that, you know, Blair and others were forced up Beachcroft and, and he was hit by a policeman on the corner of Beachcroft and Orchard Avenue. And they were trying to get ahold of me. And then they found my neighbour David Ransom just up the road, and he came and told me so I, I went to the hospital in Ealing where Blair was, but he was dead when I arrived. It was the middle of the night, but already, Commander Cass, who was chosen as the person to do a report on Southall, and Detective Inspector Helm, who's very senior. And they came to the house and took me out. I went, I took a friend with me, Sarah Hellman, she came with me to some police station where they interviewed me in the middle of the night in quite a sort of, Helm especially was very unpleasant.

LB: How does that make you feel listening to that Lee?

LL: It reminds me of how much you never forget it, you know. So, just listening to that really brought me back to my own experience with my Mum being shot, and how I felt about that. And how it never leaves you. And just to think that she's still campaigning up to today, again, it's something that I can relate to. Because you know that they didn't deserve to die in the way that they did and they're not here to be a voice for themselves, so you have to be that voice for them.

LB: Yeah, and I think with Celia, and with Blair’s story, at that time, it was another big moment where people became engaged in challenging these issues. And there was a massive response in terms of the protests and the community around Blair Peach like in that response to the National Front, they also rose up in response to his death. And I know that's similar to what happened after your Mum was shot.

LL: And the, the other thing I was thinking about, to think that they were out, campaigning against the National Front, and then you end up getting killed as a result of that, you know, something that's like, almost like a double whammy, really. The way it's always been framed in the past around protests is that you know, these are just rebellious people who just want to take to the streets and disrupt. But really, rather than seeing them as hooligans, we should see them as heroes because it takes a lot for people to actually stand up against the system. And although when my Mum was shot, I was too young to be out there protesting but what I will say is that we took great comfort from knowing that there were people out there who cared about something that happened to us.

MUSIC

CS: And at the beginning of the first inquest, this was organised by the Friends, we picketed 100 police stations throughout England as a protest, that was the first inquest, the night before it opened in October. So, you know, there was, and the marches, I mean, the week after Blair died, there was a massive demonstration from Southall. And then there was a massive demonstration on 23rd April 1980, the week before the inquest started, the second inquest started. LB: When Celia is referring to the ‘Friends’, she's speaking about the Friends of Blair Peach Committee, and that was a group of activists who came together to demand justice for Blair.

LL: You know, the slogan ‘No justice, no peace’. You know, loved ones are always seeking justice for their loved ones who have been killed at the hands of the police. And when you strip down the word justice, it means fairness. And the system that we're up against is not fair. So, you have no choice. You either sit down and take it, or you have to fight back. And campaigns are a way of fighting back against an unfair system.

LB: Exactly. Which is why 4 other family led campaigns, Matthew O'Hara, Jimmy Kelly, Liddle Towers and Richard ‘Cartoon’ Campbell, set up in the late 70s and early 80s got together to form INQUEST, the charity that we are today.

LL: And it's strange to think that when my Mum was shot in 1985, when I was just 11 years old, that 4 years before that, INQUEST had set up, and we had no idea until 2011, when my Mum actually passes, and then we come into contact with INQUEST.

LB: That brings us back to the investigations that took place after Blair's death, when in the immediate aftermath, an internal investigation was triggered. And at that time that was carried out by a Commander Cass from the Complaints Investigation Bureau, which has gone through so many iterations now, and is currently called the Independent Office for Police Conduct or IOPC, who investigate death in police custody and contact.

CS: Director of Public Prosecutions, he decided there will be no prosecution of any police officer in connection with the death. And in fact, even the Attorney General expressed surprise. And now that we know Cass in his report said that Blair, it seems quite clear that Blair was killed by a police officer. And then 28th of April, this second inquest was convened. And everyone knows at the end of May we got the verdict to misadventure. But, um, the way the inquest was conducted, a lot of a lot of it's been written about that, how the shocking way the civilians were treated. I mean, there were 11 eyewitnesses and 10 of them were, were Asians. And they were shockingly treated. And then the sort of almost sycophantic subservient way he, he spoke to the officers who were called, and just all of them absolutely denied where they were, when they were and in which who they travelled with in which van, because they were so clearly had discussed before, and none of them wanted to involve anybody in, in a situation which might be considered suspicious. So, I mean, just complete lack of memory. And of course, he'd read the Cass Report through this, as had the police council that had it and also was the jury who’d had to make the final decision, they couldn't see the Cass Report. Our solicitor, our barrister couldn't see the Cass Report and neither could the ANL barrister.

MUSIC

LB: The Cass Report was an investigation into events that surrounded Blair’s death, and the extensive report was kept from the family for more than 30 years. Eventually, it revealed that Blair was almost certainly killed by a police officer from the elite riot squad known as the Special Patrol Group or the SPG. MUSIC LB: Yeah, it's shocking when people learn this people are shocked, but it's something that we highlight a lot. That to this day, thousands of deaths later, there's still only been one successful prosecution of a police officer involved in a death. And that's despite all the evidence of neglect and violence. Celia had to wait over 30 years for the report into Blair's death to be released, even though as she explained the investigation was conducted not that long after he died. And the Metropolitan Police only made it public in 2010. Too often at INQUEST, we still see police forces and the state more broadly evading accountability by just covering up their own investigations on the evidence.

LL: We went through a very similar process. When my Mum was shot back in 1985, it took us 29 years to have what happened to my Mum recognised for what it was, which was failings by the Metropolitan Police, a number of failings, serious failings. But the process to get to that point, the fight to get to that point was gruelling.

LB: And she, she didn't die in 1985. She died years later. So, you had the initial response to her being shot. And then later you had all these post death processes that were triggered.

LL: That's right. So, if I was to just take you back to what happened in 1985, on the 28th of September, it was a Saturday morning, 7am. I heard a noise. I opened my eyes, as I was asleep in my Mum's room in her bed, and I saw my Mum walking towards the door to investigate what the noise was. Then I laid down, rest assured wherever it was, Mum was taking care of it. And then I heard another noise with a loud bang. And this time I jumped up and I just saw my Mum lying on the floor. And a man standing over her with the gun in his hand, shouting at her, and I just heard her say back in a really faint voice, ‘I can't breathe, I can't feel my legs’, and ‘I think I'm gonna die’. And just hearing her say that just freaked me out. I started screaming and shouting ‘What have you done to my Mum? What have you done to my Mum?’ And then this man turns around and points his gun towards me and said, ‘Someone better shut this effing kid up’. And I was just, I froze. And it was only in that moment that I realised this was a police officer. My dad was in the room trying to calm me down and I saw the fear in his face and I thought, wow, my dad's scared, this must be serious because he used to be in the army back in the day. We got ushered out of the bedroom, into the living room, and there was about 30 officers, dogs, guns. It felt like someone that shook my house upside down. And moments after, my Mum was rushed to the hospital. And all we were concerned about was, you know, is my Mum gonna be alright, is she gonna live? And we couldn't get any answers. And there was a news bulletin that said she had passed and then people had started to gather outside our house demanding to know why this woman was shot in front of her children. And we weren’t getting any answers. So, they marched from our house in Normandy Road in Brixton to Brixton Police Station, again demanding to know what happened, why this woman was shot in front of her children. And still no answers. That turned into frustration, that frustration turned into anger, and that anger turned into violence. And that was the catalyst for the 1985 Brixton Uprisings famously known as riots, but we, we claim the word as ‘uprising’, because that's what it was.

LB: But you found out later that she didn't actually die, in that moment.

LL: Yes. Luckily, she survived, and I remember going to see my Mum days later in hospital. And the doctor coming into the room and explaining that, as a result of being shot in her shoulder, the bullet travelled and hit her spine and her lung and came out through her hip. She was now going to be permanently paralysed, and fragments of the bullet was lodged in our spine, and they couldn't remove it, for fear of further damage. So hearing that was devastating, you know, now I had to make a commitment to my 11 year old self that I was now going to have to look after my Mum and no longer allow my Mum to look after me.

LB: God. You were 11, that is so young. And you did look after her for the rest of her life. And then later when she died, you found out that the gun and the shooting was the cause of her death… how many years later?

LL: 26 years later. So the officer who shot my Mum, there was a criminal trial, he got acquitted. So there was no justice. We had to just suck that up. And then she passed in 2011, and the doctor linked her death to the shooting. And that's how there was an inquest into my Mum’s death, something that we never thought could ever happen. We was, we didn't even know what an inquest was, at the time. And, but I just remember making a commitment to myself, that whatever this is, I'm going to pour everything into this process to try and have what happened to my mum acknowledged for what it was.

LB: And in a later episode, we're going to go into a bit more detail about what an inquest is and what that entails.

MUSIC

LB: To finish, we want to leave you with a clip of Celia talking about Blair, and who he really was.

MUSIC

CS: He was very aware of, what you could have said in those days, the haves and have nots. I think there was more poverty in the ’70s, in boroughs like Newham and Tower Hamlets and Hackney and South of the river. And, um, well his specialism was reading, he always thought the importance of reading above all else for everyone. And he used to organise Summer schools, which he organised himself as they weren't organised in those days, where children came to do reading, but also he took them out and did all sorts of nice things with them. And he once, at the beginning when we knew each other, I lived in Portsmouth, he brought 12 children down with just another teacher, they just brought them in their two cars to stay for a week in Portsmouth and it was quite amazing, you know, that experience for them. But he did things like that, and he, he really visited homes he was, he was an amazing person in that level, and he was a true socialist and a believer in justice and equality.

MUSIC

LB: In the next episode, we'll be speaking to Prosper Kaba about his fight for justice one year on from the fatal shooting of his son, Chris Kaba, and asking what connects these deaths?

LL: And looking at how our communities respond, and how the past empowers the present.

PK: One day they tell you that your son is not there, and police come to your house, they say that the police killed your son.

MUSIC

Credits

LB: We know that this is a really difficult episode. If you've been affected by any of the themes that have come up, please go to the links in the Episode Notes.

If you think other people would like ‘Unlawful Killing’, then please rate and review us wherever you get your podcasts. Ratings and feedback really help others discover the show.

If you have a story to share, get in touch via communications@inquest.org.uk or on social media.

We'd also like to pay tribute to the thousands of bereaved families who have worked alongside INQUEST. Thank you to each and every one of you who have created powerful legacies for your loved ones and contributed to important changes which protect all of us. ‘Unlawful Killing’ is made in partnership with INQUEST and Aunt Nell, presented by me, Lucy Brisbane and Lee Lawrence, produced by Leila Hagman and Naomi Oppenheim, consultant producers Tash Walker and Adam Smith. The music in this podcast is by Dave Okumu.

This podcast is part-funded by the National Lottery Heritage Fund. We're grateful that this podcast series is supported by Hodge Jones and Allen, a key law firm in the fight for what's right. Their lawyers help people right wrongs, fight injustice and defend people's rights. INQUEST have worked with Hodge Jones and Allen on countless cases from the Marchioness disaster of 1989 to the ongoing Essex mental health inquiry. Thanks also to the students from the Centre for Social Justice Research at the University of Westminster, who helped with the research for the podcast.

And finally, we'd like to thank everyone who's participated in our oral history project, with a special thanks to Celia Stubbs who featured in this episode.

Unlawful Killing

Series 1 | Episode 3: Prisons 

From Joseph Scholes to Jake Foxall, who were the children dying in our prisons?

Release Date: 7 December 2023

Season: 1

Episode: 3

Presenters: Lee Lawrence and Lucy Brisbane

Guests / Oral History interviewees featured: Maryann Walters

Producers: Leila Hagmann and Naomi Oppenheim

Consultant Producers: Adam Zmith and Tash Walker (Aunt Nell)

Music: Dave Okumu

Content warning: Prison violence, death, details of suicide, self-harm and abuse

Episode length: 29:17

Transcript

LB: This episode contains discussion of prison violence, death, details of suicide, self-harm and abuse. Please be mindful when you choose to listen. We will also be talking about self -inflicted deaths, which is the language we use the inquest around what's more commonly called Suicide.

MUSIC

LL: You're listening to Unlawful Killing : death, resistance and the fight for justice.

LB: A podcast by INQUEST, the only charity fighting alongside families bereaved by deaths involving the state, including police, prison, and m ental h ealth Services.

LL: I'm Lee Lawrence advocate and son of C herry Gro ce, who was shot by the Metropolitan Police, which sparked the 1985 Brixton uprisings.

LB: A nd I'm Lucy Brisbane from INQUEST. In this series, we're diving into our 40 - year history of campaigning. We'll be doing this through conversations with those at the centre of these stories.

LL: Episode three prisons, part one.

MW : It was the way they got treated in, you know, they didn't help him or nothing. It was absolutely shocking, shocking, shocking treatment that place well, it's not there anymore thank god. But it was it was shocking. I went to visit it after Ja ke died, they let me go and come up and have a look. I'll say it was horrible.

MUSIC

LB: We spent the last two episodes looking at policing and its fatal consequences.

LL: From Blair Peach to my mum, C herry Groc e and more recently, Chris Kaba, we looked at what links these deaths together, and how families are left fighting for justice.

LB: But now, we want to shift our focus to what lies just a step beyond policing prisons.

LL: And look at why so many people are dying in prison. Why are so few people are talking about it, and the communities and families that these deaths tear apart.

LB: In this episode, we're going to look at the children and young people who have died in prisons in the past, and her family-led campaigns have led to vital changes which have saved lives.

MUSIC

LB: People are often surprised to hear that the UK has the largest prison population in Western Europe. Every year, the prison system disappears thousands of people tearing apart their lives, communities and families. Is that because we have more bad people and more crime than the rest of Western Europe? No.

LL: It's shocking, but not surprising and it's a business prison is a business. I don't feel there's enough focus on how do we prevent crime and bring down crime and stop people repeating crime? It's about you know, how can we just give people harsher and tougher sentences for crime? And all we're doing is sort of perpetuating the problem.

LB: Yeah, and I think it's not really something that gets talked about much unless you're talking about, you know, people escaping from prison, or the government wanting to build more prisons overcrowding, but we're not really talking about who's actually bein g sent to prison, why they're being sent to prison and the harms, that prisons themselves and the criminal justice system itself, are perpetuating on the people who end up in them. There's so much scaremongering, and it's so many myths. Most people in prison are people who have long been failed by our social systems they've grown up in care, maybe they face mental ill health, addiction, homelessness, very often that people in prisons are themselves victims of harm and of violence and that violence is continued by the prison system.

LL: I hear that and there's a part of me that sympathi ses with that and on the other hand, I can understand if somebody has committed a crime and especially a horrific crime against you in your mind what you want, and what you feel you deserve is for that person to go to prison and pay for what they've done to you in time. But I feel people are not being exposed to any other options around what does justice look like. But I think if people were introduced to different ideas around what justice looks like, then people may be more open to exploring different options or wanting different things in regards to justice, or in regards to some type of accountability.

LB: And I think there's this inherent tension in our work, right, because we work with families who themselves are victims of injustice is, and really have crimes in the system as it is. Your loved one being killed, say in police custody shot by the police, wh erever it is, that is a crime a nd at the moment, there's a disparity in an unfairness where police officers or prison officers or you know, institutions are above the law and very often we're calling for more accountability for people who have been par t of those deaths and families are calling for that accountability at a criminal level and we support that. But at the same time, we see that the criminal justice system isn't preventing harm and doesn't actually solve the problems that we hope as a society that it does. So we have to also at the same time hold this truth about wanting accountability, which is valid, but also holding the truth that these systems aren't necessarily the answer to create the change that we want. So we have to, in the short ter m, say, these police officers, institutions can't be above the law, that's not fair. But also that the law itself is failing us and it's broken and we need to think more imaginatively, about how we can prevent harm in our society, in the everyday and in the more extreme examples.

LL: So Lucy, and just in response to what you just said, I think what most families who have been subjected to these injustices by the state or by institutions are fighting for is around the unfairness that if a crime is committed by a person, a normal person, like me and you, and especially if you come from a deprived background, then the likelihood is that you'd be punished and go to prison, where if someone commits the same crime within these systems, then they seem to not faced the same level of punishment, or any at all. So therefore, most families are fighting and challenging that unfairness and that unjust way of dealing with people differently, just based upon where you sit rather than what you do. Yeah.

LB: And I think what's important to remember is that some people are dragged into this system, when they're just children. Right now, there are hundreds of children in prisons in England and Wales, the age of criminal responsibility, or the youngest age that you can be arrested or charged is just 10.

LL: Wow. I mean, it just goes to show how, how vulnerable young people can just end up in the system. And how you can criminali se someone who's just as young as 10.

LB: Yeah, and when you're talking about children, it really helps you realise how much this is about systems. And this is about people who are being failed. Children are not just born bad the systems are not supporting them to get where they need to be and they're being punished from such a young age and most people don't really know what's going on in our prisons, or what they even look like and at the sharpest end of all this you have children dying in our prisons.

LL: So we never really hear about the people who end up in prison, like who they really are. We just see them as prisoners.

LB: And as part of our oral history project. We spoke to Maryann Walters whose son Jake Foxall died in a young offenders Institute in Leicestershire in 2015. Maryann told us what it's like having a son in prison.

MUSIC

MW: He'd never been in prison before. You know, Jake was never a tough person. He was always come across as tough but he wasn't he was very frightened little boy and that . I was hopeless and helpless. I didn't think anybody would be able to help me out in that, you know, you just it's funny because the prison system do not help out people like first timers they just okay he's in prison he's done crime, just get on with it. But they don't help families out you know, and they should, they should, especially if it's the first time mum knowing that child's got something wrong with him. It scared me, I don't think I really slept actually when he was in prison at all, I think I just up and down all night. It was very, very unsettling time for me, it's horrible I used to go and try to see him twice a week as well in prison and I didn't like it at all I was scared constantly. I think I went grey the whole appearance on my face has changed from being like no wrinkles to having wrinkles that I've got this is weird how much how much stress can cause that's what it did. I was really stressed totally.

LL: Listening to that makes you realise how much others are affected by people being in prison. And those are the stories that we don't hear, you know, m um and mum having to travel, to go to see her son in prison, in the hostile environment that that is, you know, I know that people get searched and frisks down and, you know, there's dogs, and it's a really intimidating environment to be in. And sometimes the person could be in prison, you know, quite far away could be hours and hours and miles and miles away, and that person has to travel, or send that person money. And all that time you hear in her voice, the concern, and the fear that she has sort of a son, being in that environment day in and day out and distress that probably causes as well.

LB: Yeah, and the fear because we know that prisons are bleak places. This is a 19 - year -old who has been taken away from his mum, he's been locked up in his cell, you know, people are locked up for up to 23 hours a day, maybe only getting out for meals, if that there's violence, there's bullying, including from staff, and access to both mental and physical health care is so poor.

LL: And that's why it's no surprise and self harm, and suicide rates are so high in prison in our country. LB: And just going back to Jake, you know, if I think about when I was a teenager, I cannot imagine how I would have felt alone and just taken away from my family.

MH: And he didn't get no help or nothing up there at all. They didn't get in touch with me, I couldn't go see him b ecause it's too far, they wouldn't help me go and see him a nd it was just phone calls and that and he called out to me a few times, that I'm getting bullied and you know, just basically just palmed off, you know, they just palmed off on that. And then I got a phone call. I got a phone my last phone call from Jay, it was a day that he done it. I didn't realise at the time that that was actually a goodbye message because he spoke to his brother as well. And then obviously next time I got a phone call from the governor saying that Jake was in hospital on life support machine because he hung himself. So it was it the way they got treated you know and they didn't help him or nothing at Glen Parva it was absolutely shocking, shocking, shocking treatment , that place was . It's not there anymore thank god . But it was it was shocking. I went to visit after Jake died they let me go and come up and have a look i t how sick it's horrible i t's just like a medieval prison. But w hen Jake was in hospital at one prison guard that was really nice. Even though it's funny to have with the handcuffs. I'm thinking, why have you got handcuffs on my son he can't move , he's unconscious, he's got a tube down his throat and their handcuffi ng him. It's protocol but it was just every time I see him there was handcuffs on the bed. It's horrible it was just vile.

LB: You know, in our work we hear like shocking, shocking stories all the time. But I just think when you hear a mum, talking about her son, dying, the prison staff keeping him in handcuffs. It's just, it just speaks so much to just how dehumanized people are when they're in prison, and how much they've lost sight of people, having families and people who love them, and also just being people who need help and support. I still feel shocking to me every day, even I know this is what's happening. LL: And I've still got that image in my mind of this person. This boy , I would say boy, because he was a teenager 19 handcuffed to the bed while he's on the life support machine a nd how, as you say dehumani sing that is and how this person is not seen as a person that is seen as a prisoner who is a criminal and doesn't deserve to be treated like a human being.

LB: And also in Maryann's voice, you know, you can hear how much she cares about him and how much she loves him. And yet, we live in this society where he was taken away from his family who care about him and can help him and put in this situation that clearly actively harmed him as a 19 -year -old, like, what is the value in that? We live in a society where this whole group of people is not only physically removed to prisons, but actually actively harmed by these systems? And very often it's the most marginalised people who end up in prison; people with mental health issues, like Jake or people who are living in poverty, people who are racialised, or are survivors of abuse. And you know, we've got some facts here. Nearly a third of young people in prison have special educational needs or disabilities compared to just 15% of children nationally. In this Country, less than 1% of all children are in care, but looked after children make up 33% of boys and 61% of girls in custody. And more than half of young prisoners have been permanently excluded from school. It's something that campaigners call the school to prison pipeline, we're creating a system where the people who need the most help are the people who are ending up being punished.

LL: And it's sad that what these people really need is support. But they're being punished and further damaged. You know, what does that environment like the way you're forced to take your own life? You know, it says a lot about the environment that you're in, it just feels very unfair, especially for young people to be put in an environment like that.

LB: And the children that we're talking about, and the young people that we're talking about, more than half of those children are from racialised communities. We know what's happening in this country that is not a coincidence.

LL: And it's not. And I could say, as a young person growing up in Britain, I've been subjected to, you know, the stereotypes and constantly being stopped, searched and arrested. And I haven't got a criminal record, I couldn't tell you how many times I've been arrested and how many times I've been put into a cell. And so just the whole unfairness, right? That just because of what you look like and where you happen to live, and your social standing, where people should be more empathetic towards you, you're being treated more harshly as a result of that. And to me, I see how people get hardened, how people could go in very vulnerable into those situations, and then end up hardening up and come out and reoffending. Because every day that's just been projected upon you. You're not seeing the possibilities of what you can be you're just seeing what people are projecting onto you in terms of being a criminal, in terms of being somebody who can't do any better than what you're doing now. So where does somebody go with that type of mindset?

LB: Yeah, and it's survival and I think, you know, we've been talking about children in prison, but every year, there's also over 100,000 children who have a parent in prison. Prison affects more than the people who are just there. It's their families as well.

LL: And I guess that's where INQUEST comes in.

MUSIC

MW: Because it was like a Victorian, it was a Victorian prison. They just didn't care, basically because it was quite a lot of children, young men that died in that prison, and most of them died with hanging as well, which I thought was absolutely shocking. No, there was no humanity in there, no thought, no care, no personality, and it was just nothing, just absolutely nothing. And obviously, with INQUEST , they brought all that to light as well. You know, they said to me that Glen Parva was the worst prison for the children to die, because I think it was about, I think it was every six months, or every nine months you they'd find on it, and they're hanging in that. And just before the prison shut down, I learned that another boy had hung himself, as well in that same prison. I'm just glad it's not there anymore, I really am. It was horrendous. It was horrific. But it was the death prison that ’s what we call it, the death prison.

LB: And what Maryann is talking about there is how Glen Parva was actually shut down in 2017. But that was only off the back of years of campaigning from families, who came together to really show what was happening there.

LL: And for me, you know, it's amazing when you hear these stories of how these loved ones who have been harmed and damaged and trauma it at the hands of the system, how they managed to muster up the strength not even just to fight for their loved ones, but to fig ht for others who are in that same position a nd for people who could have ended up in that position in the future. So it always warms my heart to hear how people find the space in their heart to fight for not only their loved ones, but for others as well.

LB: Yeah, and I think that's kind of where INQUEST as a charity comes in, because we tried to connect the dots and bring all those families together to bring more strength and apply pressure to the government, make them listen to families and create the change that is needed. And INQUEST did some of this work with a review called The Harris review in 2015, which linked to the deaths of children and young people in prison. And Lord Harris, who led the review said every single death of a young person in prison is a failure by the state. LL: One of the cases that sparked The Harris review was the death of Joseph Scholes. In Stoke Heath prison. He was just 16 years old, and his mum Yvonne Baliey campaigned tirelessly for change, united with other mothers whose children took their own lives in prison, following abuse, bullying and neglect. And Lee Yvonne’s photograph was part of T he Souls INQUEST Exhibition, which you were also a part of. LL: That's correct. You know, the Souls INQUEST E xhibition itself was seen as a combination of all these different representations of people whose lives were lost at the hands of the institutions was powerful within itself.

LB: Yeah, and Yvonn e's picturing that she worked on with her family was the number 16 made up with all these toys, all Joseph 's toys, as a reminder of the fact that although he was in prison, and he took his own life, he was just a child and he still had these toys, and he was so loved. And that's what she really wanted to highlight that he was a child, I think it's important to acknowledge that, you know, following the campaigning by Yvonne, alongside those other mothers, no child that is no under 18 -year-old, has died of self -inflicted death in prison in the 11 years. If you compare that to the early 2000s, when there were two or three self-inflicted deaths of children in prison every year, that is progress. And the latest data shows that the population of children in prison is at its lowest level for 10 years. That is not to say that there are no problems in child prisons for the hundreds of children that are still there. There absolutely are. There is so much further to go and actually INQUEST believes no child should be in prison. But we have to mark the progress, huge progress that's been made, and the lives that have been saved. And we have to recognise the efforts of the families that made this happen a nd remember their loved ones who died preventable deaths, but now leave a legacy that continues to protect other people.

LL: Absolutely. The power of protests and campaigns.

LB: And that's child prisons. Right. So that's just under 18 -year -olds, the minute you turn 18, the minute you're an adult in prison, is a different story. And actually, the opposite of that progress is what's happening in adult prisons, and particularly in men's prisons, the populations are increasing to the highest levels we've ever seen. They're continuing to go up and up public policy. Both Tories and Labour want to be tougher on crime. But that isn't working. And there's a real lack of political will, or it's just like an unpopular opinion to try and change that.

LL: And it just goes to show that, you know, prisons do not work in terms of reform. There's more reoffending and it's almost like when we look at stopping search, when there's violence they see as we need to put in more stop and search, and it doesn't actually prevent or stop the problem. It just creates another problem.

LB: Yeah, it's a cycle of harm. And that cycle doesn't end when a person is released from prison. Prison affects your education, your job prospects, housing, everything,

LL: It's hard to believe that we're still pumping so much money into a system that's so broken. I swear, I've heard somewhere before that it's more expensive to send a child to prison than what it is to send them to Eton.

LB: Yeah, exactly that it says it all. So it actually costs between £ 76,000 and £160,000 per year to imprison a young person.

LL: Wow. That's all I can say. And how do we as a society think we're getting value for money?

LB: Yeah. How can we justify that imagine what else you could put all that money into if you just paid for someone's house for a year? Even that it's so simple i f you just changed the way we're looking at our public policy.

LL: Just imagine if we was to reinvest that money into those children's futures, to prevent them from getting into crime in the first place.

LB: Yeah, that is exactly the point that campaigners are trying to make about system change. Campaigners like Jake's mum, Maryanne, and

LL: It just goes to show listening to Mar yann and Jake ’s story, what can happen when we come together for change? And I really do commend them for doing that and just to think before they're campaigning, there was at least two young people dying in prison a year. So just think about all those lives that they've saved and that's the power of campaigning and that's why it's so important that people listening to this podcast support these types of campaigns for change.

LB: That is the perfect note to end on Lee so to finish, we're going to hear from Maryann about who Jake was and what he meant to her.

MW: was a little sweetheart, he had ADHD. Okay, and he had mental health problems as well. He was born 5th December 1995. He was six pounds two. He was little tiny thing. And then he decided to grow up and be six, four and a half. He was like me, he liked physics. He liked looking at the stars. We used to sit out on wood in the summer and watch the stars and that and he liked going out with his friends. He liked cars a nd he was like me he was so caring that his friends used to come to him to talk to him. They used to talk to him, but no one was there for him. For him to talk to us to hide behind these feelings. Now if he's you know, even though he was this big tall boy he was just introvert and you are such a loving caring boy he loved his brother to pieces even though they fought like cat and dog because there's only 14 months between them. But yeah, he loved fast and furious. He liked horror films, even though he had nightmares at night, which was quite funny. Used to come out scream he was a gentle giant, he wouldn't do anybody any wrong. My baby always be my baby like it was my Peter Pan, the boy that never give up.

MUSIC

LB: In the next episode, we'll be speaking to Dita Saliuka about her campaign for justice after her brother Liridon died in Belmarsh prison.

DS: Because it doesn't matter how much campaigning I do and what I do. He's not coming back and that's what I tried to point out when I do all of these things. I want to ensure that you know, somebody else doesn't lose their lives the way Lirido n did, and that another family isn't destroyed like ours, you know, because it keeps happening.

MUSIC

Credits

LB: We know that this is a really difficult episode. If you've been affected by any of the themes that have come up, please go to the links in the Episode Notes. If you think other people would like Unlawful Killing, then please rate and review us wherever you get your podcasts, ratings and feedback really help others discover the show.

If you have a story to share, get in touch via communications@inquest.org.uk or on social media.

We'd also like to pay tribute to the thousands of bereaved families who have worked alongside INQUEST thank you to each and every one of you who have created powerful legacies for your loved ones, and contributed to important changes which protects all of us. Unlawful Killing is made in partnership with INQUEST and now presented by me Lucy Brisbane and Lee Lawrence, produced by Leila Hagman and Naomi Oppenheim, consultant producers Tash Walker and Adam Smith. The music in this podcast is by Dave Okumu.

This podcast is part-funded by the National Lottery Heritage Fund. We're grateful that this podcast series is supported by Hodge Jones and Alan a key law firm in the fight for what's right. Their lawyers help people right wrongs, fight injustice and defend people's rights in court. INQUEST have worked with Hodge Jones and Alan on countless cases from the Marchioness disaster of 1989 to the ongoing Essex mental health inquiry. Thanks also to the students from the Centre for Social Justice Research at the University of Westminster, who helped with the research for the podcast.

We would also like to thank Maryann Walters and Anna Susianta for participating in our oral History Project.

Unlawful Killing

Series 1 | Episode 4: Prisons 

Deaths in prison, disability discrimination and Liridon Saliuka

Release Date: 14 December 2023

Season: 1

Episode: 4

Presenters: Lee Lawrence and Lucy Brisbane

Guests / Oral History interviewees featured: Dita Saliuka

Producers: Leila Hagmann and Naomi Oppenheim

Consultant Producers: Adam Zmith and Tash Walker (Aunt Nell)

Music: Dave Okumu

Content warning: Prison violence, death, details of suicide, self-harm and abuse

Episode length: 35:23

Transcript

LB: This episode contains stories about prison violence, death, suicide, self-harm, and abuse. Please be mindful when you choose to listen

MUSIC

LL: You're listening to Unlawful Killing: death, resistance and the fight for justice.

LB: A podcast by INQUEST, the only charity fighting alongside families bereaved by deaths involving the state including police, prison, and mental health Services.

LL: I'm Lee Lawrence advocate and son of Cherry Groce, who was shot by the Metropolitan Police, which sparked the 1985 Brixton uprisings.

LB: And I'm Lucy Brisbane from INQUEST. In this series, we're diving into our 40 year history of campaigning. We'll be doing this through conversations with those at the centre of these stories.

LL: Episode Four, prisons, part two.

DS: Because it doesn't matter how much campaigning I do and what I do, he's not coming back. And that's what I tried to point out. When I do all of these things. I want to ensure that you know, somebody else doesn't lose their lives the way Liradon did, and that another family isn't destroyed like ours, you know, because it keeps happening.

MUSIC

LB: Last episode, we looked at the deaths of children in prison, and how through family led campaigning, vital changes mean that no child under 18 has died in prison since 2016. But every year, hundreds of people continue to die in adult prisons across the country, hidden from view and away from their families and friends.

LL: So we spoke to Dita Saliuka, whose brother Liridon died in Belmarsh prison, about her experiences about campaigning for justice and systemic change.

DS: I'm Dita Saliuka. I campaigned for prison reform after losing my brother Liridon in prison. Liridon was on remand at HMP Belmarsh for five and a half months awaiting trial under the joint enterprise doctrine or a murder that somebody else committed. At the time of being on remand, he had also had a disability because he'd been in a serious car accident in January 2018, where he sustained life changing injuries. So he was in prison and then he was awaiting trial to clear his name he communicated really well with his legal team. I had all of the information, all of the disclosure that goes coming through and he just wanted to clear his name, but unfortunately, you know, those HMP Belmarsh that had a duty of care, massively let him do wn, refuse to accept that somebody like him, as they described somebody with a big character, somebody that, you know, went to the gym and had upper body strength, didn't look disabled could not be disabled. So yeah, after a lot of issues, HMP Belmarsh, which he also told me about he died, and nearly three years later inquest concluded that he died by suicide and it was, you know, to do with disability discrimination by HMP, Belmarsh staff dismissive behaviour, ill treatment by them significant and multiple failures by them, all of these which contributed to the decline in his mental health which led to his death.

LL: Dita. Thank you for sharing that. What did you know about prison before your brother ended up in prison?

DS: I wouldn't say I was naive. I was always, you know, aware of what was going on in the world and what was going on in the UK, across lots of different areas and not just prisons. I didn't reali se, though, that a place like healthy HMP Belmarsh would be run in such a chaotic way with qui te, uncaring, heartless staff, be it prison officers, being doctors, being nurses, being so called mental health professionals who seem to lack compassion, let alone anything else, you know, being told that my brother was restrained by nine prison officers for asking not to be moved from his disable d cell and he had a disability and they fully well know it. They had all his medical notes, all his multiple, multiple many, many surgeries that he had across his whole body, his ankle, his femur, his back his face they knew all of this to treat him. The way they did, because somebody like him didn't look disabled in their view. And then to be told that there's no CCTV cameras of the day he died, where he was being restrained. I don't understand that, you know, how can a prison be run like that and then on top of it being run on safely by apparently, CCTV cameras been

inoperable for 12 years, and they call it high security prison. So yeah, I think I knew a little bit, but nowhere near to what I know now because of what happened to Liridon and what I continue to learn even now, years later, you know, nothing has really changed be it Belmarsh or any of the other prisons in the UK all I see is politicians talking about how people are being treated in prisons in other countries, yet they don't do anything about the prisons in the UK.

LB: And if anything could argue that they're making things worse, the current politicians.

DS: Yes, they're making things worse. They think their answer to it always build more prisons. That's not the answer it's been proven by Norway. You know, the more people in prison, the higher the reoffending rate anyway. So it has been proven, so why would that be your answer? That's not sorting any problems.

LB: Dita, you, obviously became a campaigner after the Liridon died but actually, while he was in prison, you came together with another campaign group that was specifically around the sentence that you mentioned that Liridon was being charged with the joint enterprise doctrine. So my understanding is that giant enterprises when somebody is charged alongside others for a crime that they didn't directly commit, or weren’t the main, perpetrator. So can you tell us a little bit about joint enterprise and about the JENGbA campaign?

DS: Yeah, so I started getting involved with JENGbA, which has joined enterprise not guilty by association while Liridon was in prison because I wanted to understand what this was, I was hearing a lot of bad stories, to be honest, you know, most of the people in this campaign group are convicted, Liridon was on remand. And I just learned about how they twist things in court, because they try and say that you either assisted or encouraged and if you did a sister encouraged, then you'd be found guilty and received the same sentence as the perpetrator who did commit the crime, some people think that you can only be charged with the under the joint enterprise doctrine with the other person that did it, or the others, it was different in Liridon’s case, Liridon was charged himself, nobody else because they couldn't actually found find the person who did it.

LB: So really, it was kind of like a case of Liridon, it was in the wrong place at the wrong time and I think what a lot of people wouldn't actually believe, is that then you can be actually sent to prison on remand, which is when you haven't been actually found guilty of anything that's before the trial. So that is shocking in and of itself and then for that, to continue in prison, to have such a negative impact on his mental health, while he was sort of waiting to stand trial, I think a lot of people would be really shocked and that's something that you've spoken out about, as a campaigner as a whole.

DS: You know, it was bad enough of being accused of crime you didn't commit, and then to be held under those conditions. On top of that, to have a disability it had a massive, massive impact on him. You know, at the end of the day, he was a strong

character he looked strong, but he was human and I think sometimes people just like to judge people based on how they look.

LB: So obviously, as Liridon’s Sister, you have been an advocate for him in life and also in death. And I think that really links with your experience Lee, with your mum, you kind of campaigned and you took on this role as campaigner, and Kiera, I don't know if you want it to reflect on that kind of crossover.

LL: Well are those two things that were to reflect on? One is around disability, my mum was left disabled as a result of being shot by the Metropolitan Police and listening to you and hearing that his disability wasn't taken seriously. I mean, even down to the fact that he wasn't granted bail, with the conditions that he had should have been that should have been taken into consideration and then when you're being put in a situation like that, and there's a perception of who you are and when you're trying to say, you know, as much as I've learned to cope with my disability, well, it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist and trying to let you know that, you know, I have this and it does affect me in this way and to feel that all that time it was being ignored as I was listening to you thinking you know how horrible that must have been for him being in that position in the first place and then around the campaigning and what you have to do to have a voice for that person who unfortunately didn't have their voice heard at the time. How did you manage to, you know, find the strength and have courage to do that and what made you decide that it was going to be you have everyone else in your family?

DS: I've got my parents and I've got two brothers. So there was four of us kids I think for me, it wasn't really a thing of who will be do this. I think I've always been the one in the family that picks things up and does things I wouldn't say that I was just helping Liridon while he was in prison, I cared for him, I slept on the mattress on the floor, and I cared for him. When you know, he was bed-bound for three months, I was always there for him, we were always really close you know, we were always there for each other. I think for me, I've always been the one that sorts you know, sorts things out. But you know, w hen Liridon and died, it was the first time in my life where it was something I would, you know, I will never be able to sort out because it doesn't matter how much campaigning I do and what I do he's not coming back. And that's what I tried to point out when I do all of these things. I want to ensure that, you know, somebody else doesn't lose them lose their lives the way Liridon did, and that and other families and destroyed like ours, you know, because it keeps happening. I think I just did it, because one of the things that hurts me the most is that during that time, nobody was listening to him. He was talking, because sometimes they say that, you know, when somebody is struggling, and they don't speak he did. He asked them for help but he was denied that help so for me, it's about making sure that his voice is heard. And that was what was really, really important at the inquest, because I know that the inquest doesn't bring my brother back. But it's to acknowledge what happened to him and what happened was wrong and that's

exactly what the jury found and that means a lot to me, that his voice has been heard and in the meantime, since that, I just don't want this to happen to anyone else that's all I'm asking. I don't know why it's so difficult to ask for people to be cared for to be treated as humans for compassion for health care. I don't know why it's difficult to ask, to, you know, to stop people from dying, where, you know, these are unnatural deaths. These are preventable deaths.

LL: And I think that's quite key. They're preventable and there seems to be a clear link between care and campaigner. So the mere fact that you were somebody who cared for your brother before and then when this happened, you then became a campaign that for him is something I can relate to because I was my mum's caregiver after she was shot, and then became the voice for when she passed, and there was an inquest into her death. And I think there's something about the kind of closeness to you and the bond, and that kind of empathy that you then build for that person, when you play that role and so therefore, when it comes to campaigning, you fight in the in the fight just that bit harder, because you know, that person intricately, and you know, they didn't deserve to die in the way that they did.

DS: Yeah, that's really true. It's, you know, I think, when that happens, because some people say, oh, you're really strong, but I don't really see myself as strong as, you know, you choose between dying and living. You can choose to die. Or you can choose to live. But by living, I feel like the only way I can live is by campaigning by trying to make a difference because if I don't do it, you know, and loads of other people don't do it because I think one of the things that comes out is the you know, prison died in prison. You know, that's, you know, some people are, you know, ashamed of it, because, you know, people will talk people will say that, but you know, what, I don't care what people will say, because they don't know the truth. They don't know everything. I have to say something for them to know because if we all keep our mouth shut, no one else is going to know anything. No one's gonna know what's going on and it's one of the reasons why I chose to go public. It's not that the Ministry of Justice released information to say, This person had died. I just chose to go public to say that my brother had died in prison. He was disabled, and he was being discriminated against this happened that happened. I want to find out what happened to my brother and, you know, while I didn't actually get any negative publicity, I feel p eople are actually interested to know what happened. And maybe if we spoke out a bit more people would understand a bit more.

LB: I just want to touch on that point, you made detail about discrimination, because I think that's something really important to acknowledge in terms of the Liridon’s disability, but also in terms of joint enterprise what we know is that a recent report came out and revealed that more than half of the people who are prosecuted under the joint enterprise doctrine come from black and minority ethnicities, and you're much more likely to end up being sent to prison for a crime that you haven't committed in that way you are a person of colour, basically, and I just wanted to acknowledge that and get your reflections

DS: the statistics speak for themselves, you know, it's quite interesting to see that out if they'd recorded everything. I bet it's probably even worse if they had more of the information, because I don't know the exact details of how this was pulled together. But I would not be shocked if this was worse and yeah, maybe if Liridon was a white English boy, the chances of being him being charged might have, you know, might have not been as big. Maybe I can't answer that I can assume but hearing from loads of people who've got loved ones in prison under joint enterprise semes statistics, you know, these are all facts based on that.

LB: Yeah, I think that's really important just to acknowledge that, and also Leeuwarden was one of 12 people to die in Belmarsh itself. In the past five years, four of those deaths were self-inflicted, but we know he's also one of hundreds of people to die in prison every year. and that continues through your campaigning, you've met other families and other family campaigners who have been doing this recently and also for many years, how has that felt meeting other families along the way and kind of joining together through INQUEST to campaign?

DS: I think, for me, it's given me you know, strength to do this seeing them do it makes me you know, want to fight with them as well it does give you a lot of strength. It's difficult because before the inquest as they take years, I used to think what's gonna happen after it, what am I going to be like, because to be honest, I don't think there's been a moment where I've properly dealt w ith the loss of my brother, because I've been dealing with that court process dealing with the campaigning, and lots of things that I didn't have the time to do that. But then to see people to meet people that have actually been through the inquest gives me hope that, you know, maybe there is something you know, in life worth living for, and which has been really difficult, because I think when I used to carefully written after the accident, I cared for him, and you could see him getting better. Whereas this situation when he died, you know, that's the worst thing that could happen and I've lost a big, big part of me. And I've also lost all the dreams in my life, and what I want to do to do with my life, you lose hope in life yourself. It's, you know, you go through depression and everything and at the same time, you're trying to make a difference, so that somebody else doesn't suffer in those same way. But meeting families like that just gives you hope and it just, it really, really, really does help because it makes you see that there is you should continue living and that you can make a difference in the world in the world.

LB: I don't know if you wanted to reflect on that. Lee, as someone who's been campaigning for how many years?

LL: Too many. Well, I will say, for me, in the immediate aftermath, when my mum was shot, we went into survival mode. So for many years, it was just like, we got survivable, find a way to kind of just live and support my mum and for her, it was about trying to do the best that she could, in the situation that she was in being paralyzed in a wheelchair as a result of that. And it was only when she passed that, in 2011, that I had to, well, there was a strong desire, I will say, to step up and say,

There's no way, my mom's going out like that. There's no way that what happened to her just gonna be seen as some accident. Truth needs to be known and it needs to be a public record. That it wasn't I was there, I saw it for myself. So then there was that whole campaign, and it was hard if I was to reflect that it's probably one of the most difficult times and challenging times of my life. But also, it allowed me to learn so much about myself as well and what's possible and would you say for yourself, you k now, in campaigning, what did you learn about yourself?

DS: I think I was always seen as the strong one in the family. But sometimes, I shocked myself to where I am now like, you know, mentally because I just didn't think I was gonna get through it. I didn't, I wouldn't be possible to do some of the things I did so I have surprised myself in some way and I start to think about some of the things that Liridon used to say about me that I've quite tough. so she's only tough because we made her tough, you know, growing up with three brothers and yeah, I start to think about some of the things he said he used to talk to me a lot about me, you know, he really adored me, like he just thought I was perfect in his view and it's crazy that you know, to have someone like that in your life that thinks that about you because, you know, there's loads of people that have siblings on don't get on with them, don't have strong relationships with them and I did quite a lot for him, but he gave me a lot back because he just gave me the love that a brother would give and the support and motivation and he's actually person who would always push me to be quite ambitious and everything and told me I was so amazing and he's just referred to me as the goody goody.

LL: That's beautiful, and I just want to take the opportunity to commend you And know, as I said to you from experience, how difficult that journey is, you found a will you found a determination. I know the love for your property is something that also spurred you on. But at the same time, it's not an easy road to go down and I just want to commend you on doing what you've done for your brother, and what you're continuing to do in advocating for others and I just want to ask a question about the process and how you feel after going through the inquest getting the outcome. Do you feel like you got any sense of justice?

DS: No, not I wouldn't say justice, I would say that I got the truth out to a certain extent. I wouldn't say I got justice because they you know, I'm not saying I want other people to die, I don't think tha t you should ask for. I don't agree with death paying death by death as in like, you know, death sentence and stuff like that. I don't believe in stuff like that I don't want I don't want to have their the views that other people have about how you deal with certain things. I want them to acknowledge them or want them to come and speak to me, I want them to tell me that we're sorry. I want something to happen maybe yeah, maybe criminal charges, because what they did, I'm sure it was illegal. But you know, because of their roles, job titles, they get protected by the law. And that's not fair. It's not fair. Because if I did something at work, that was wrong, I'd have to be held responsibl e.

LB: So you're talking about prison staff, the prison itself, and the Ministry of Justice.

DS: Total level, top to bottom

LB: They need to be held to account?

DS: They need to because you know what, nothing will change until they are held accountable and if they are held accountable, I guarantee you, other people would start doing their jobs properly and you know, yeah, some of these shoes are training issues but you know, the other problem is compassion, lack of compassion there's some people that should not be in those roles, because they do not have compassion and you cannot teach someone compassion.

LB: But something that did come up in the inquest, which I think is really important is that the coroner was able to make recommendations as part of a prevention of future deaths report, which means that there's a direct recommendation for what the prison service itself and Belmarsh itself need to change. How did that feel for you and what were those recommendation?

DS: Recommendations were about finding out who should be making these reasonable adjustments for an orthopaedic mattress because they still see don't seem to be clear on who's responsible. The prison staff blame Oxley’s, Oxley’s blame social care, social care aren't responsible for this. It's the President's responsibility they are responsible for the regime and what happens within their walls. You know, they've just ignored this prevention of future death report from the coroner's came back with a couple of paragraphs, which didn't even make sense. Our legal team wrote back to the coroner who the coroner agreed that this doesn't mean anything, this doesn't say that you've made the changes or how you've made the changes, and they've just ignored the coroner. So you know, that is proof that they don't care, you know, that's a coroner that's made that recommendation. It was an eight -day inquest, you know, lots of witnesses and a lot of money spent in the end for them not to take these recommendations and make a change. It's just a slap in the face yeah, he died, we don't care. We're gonna let it happen again.

LB: So in some ways, it feels like although you got the truth from these processes, you still haven't got justice, you still haven't got accountability and where you're putting your energy now is into joining alongside other families and coming together to campaign against the harms of imprisonment, which is a huge campaign and something that you're doing amazingly and I also just wanted to highlight we've heard so much amazing fighting talk from you, but also in everything that you say, I can hear so much love and I can hear Liridon standing behind you, and just feel that warmt h. And I just wanted to end by asking you, can you tell us a bit more about Leeuwarden and who he was as a person?

DS: Yeah, it's really are talking about this part. I mean, it's things that they said at the inquest as well, you know, those members of staff that were there, he was always quite approachable, friendly a lways said please and thank you. He said he always greeted people with the hug. The doctor said he wouldn't usually hug

people but with Liridon and it just felt natural because he just hugged me though. He said, every time I saw him, you know, we hugged. He was quite caring. He was, you know, he trusted people a lot, which I think was one of his downsides because in the world we live in these days, you can't really trust people much and he was he was, you know, he was quite direct person. He wasn't someone that lied. He was direct. He told you the way things were. He wasn't rude, but he would tell you, which yeah, again, is one of the things in the world where being honest doesn't seem to work in your favour. For me, you know, he was he was such an amazing brother because he was always there for me, my phone would always ring, I'd always know what he was doing where he was going. We were just really close, he was close to my other two brothers as well, specifically, also his little brother, who was really close to the point where when they were little, they used to like fight, and then my parents would separate them. But they wouldn't have that because they always wanted to be together. So they got super glue, and super glued their hands together and said, they can't separate us now took hours to get that off. And yeah, he was just great. And he was also like a really, really great uncle, two older brothers, kids, they just loved it when he was about, he would like show them how to box. So they still do that and they say, you know, unc le Liridon taught us how to box. He was just funny, he was really funny. But he always knew his limits, like he could have a really, really deep conversation with you, which was amazing.

LL: Thank you for sharing that. And I think it's so important for the people listening to be able to understand and hear from you about livered and as a person, because so many times when our loved ones dying the way that they do, or are taken away from us in the way that they are. In these cases, they're seen as like a subject and they speak about them in a way like, you know, this was just a person who died in prison. This person meant more than that to you and I felt the same way with my mom, she was alw ays known as this woman who was shot by the police back in 1985 that sparked the Brixton uprisings. But she was much more than that and it was so important for me to be able t o allow people to see that as well. So that they connect to the human aspect of the story and when they understand who that person was, then they can understand why it's such a loss to us. So thank you very much for sharing that.

DS: Thank you so much and thank you, too, for you for sharing about your mother, it's great to see someone like you, in front of me, you've been campaigning for a lot longer than I have been doing a lot more. So it just gives me a lot of hope that you know, I can continue this and hopefully make a change.

LL: A nd you give me hope to o.

DS: Thank you.

MUSIC

LB: How does it feel listening back to that?

LL: Just brings you back to the moment, right and I think my response to it was really, I suppose connected with what she was saying in terms of speaking about her allowing us to know him through her and identifying how important it is to be able to do that, you know, as someone who's campaigning or fighting for justice, for your loved one, this, this was at the forefront of your mind to want to be able to do that, as well as, and I think it forms a massive part of the campaign to bring that person alive and to the forefront so that peopl e connect to the fact that you know, wow, this was someone and this was unfair, and it should have never happened and we shouldn't be allowing the system to get away with treating us like this. So yeah, it was humbling and I love the way that she was able to tell her story and speak about it in such a passionate way a o though, you heard the light and shade in, in that conversation where you heard that there was happier moments where she fought about joyful times that she spent with her brother and some of t he things that he did and you know, she had a little giggle about that. So you really connect you really connects to what life was like before and the joy as well as connected to the loss, the deep loss and the pain and the trauma that comes with that too.

LB: And I felt listening to that and being in the room with both of you. It really struck me how much you had in common, like what happened was so different to her brother and to your mum, and your experiences, you know, took place many years apart but actually, you had so much in common.

LL: And I felt that And I suppose that's the great thing about the podcast as well is that although these things can happen in silo, you're going through these things is happening to you. It's your own unique experience. But it's something about when you meet other people who have gone through similar things is instant connection or bond and a level of empathy that you kind of exchange in that moment that is hard to put into words. It's a feeling it's an energy.

LB: It was something that she said though, that listening back really caught my ears, but I didn't really I don't think we really addressed it in the moment and I wonder what you think about this, which is she sort of briefly mentioned that through this campaigning and through going through the legal processes. She was really focused on, you know, like, challenging the failures in prison and getting to the answ ers and she sort of in passing said that as part of that she feels. Maybe she hasn't really dealt with her grief and actually hearing that, I thought, that is a huge point. And it's a huge thing that I think comes up for a lot of the families that we work with, particularly the families who go to campaigning and go to the fight for justice as part of their response to this huge loss and huge change in their lives and within the grief and I wondered what you think about that moment and about that reflection from detail,

LL: it triggered something inside me and it triggered a question, because I think it's easy for people to look at me, I don't think we've managed to achieve with the support my family, around the acknowledgement of what happened to my mum and some level of accountability that came in the form of restorative justice, and

the work that I continue to do now that I got a sense of justice at the situation s o I'm kind of on the other side, but you could also look at it that, for me to continue doing what I'm doing, is that a sign I'm not healed and is that a sign that this thing that is never ending, because you can't bring back your loved one. So you find in something more to do and keeping yourself busy, is the thing that keeps you going and maybe the day you stop is the day that you're kind of left with that stark reality of what happened to your loved one, the fact that they're never coming back, and the fact that no matter what you do, you may help others. But you can't undo what's been done.

LB: But there was this other dynamic right that came up, which was that in life, you for your mom and Dita for her brother had a rule as a kind of very active carer rule and that's something I see with loads of the families that we work with. Often when somebody's died, the relative who ends up being the one at the forefront of the fight for change in the long term. When that person was alive, that person's care or that person support was a huge part of that family members life and you kind of also see that you can't imagine some of these family members not doing what they're doing. There is a simple thing that you could say where it's like, oh, it's all about grief, and you're avoiding your grief. But actually, you know that something about that like carer to campaigner dynamic where you think actually, is there something about like your role in your position in life is about that care whether that person is in life or in death?

LL: And that's a good point that you raised because you know, people say, Oh, is it what you've gone through that makes you who you are? Or is it fundamentally who you are, that shapes how you respond to things an d I prefer to kind of go with the latter, so if we look at it like that, you could almost say, okay, maybe no one could fight as hard as you because you was maybe that connected to that person in a different way. It doesn't mean that, you kno w you love that anyone else is less important, right? But sometimes we've all got a role and a purpose and you can decide to step into tha t role, or you can decide to run away from it. And what I will say as a positive is that you do discover a lot about yourself in the struggle, your strength s, and things that you may have taken for granted. That now you realize that when you're applying it for this purpose, that it has huge benefits. And, and that's transferable. And that's why I think people then tend to go on to do more work, and try to help others because they realize that there's a lot more that can be done.

LB: We've been talking a lot about care, and kind of reflecting on the love and care that drives families and drives people. But we're also talking about prisons. And in a way prisons are the opposite of a caring environment, a loving environment. They take people away from their families away for the from the people that care about them and they don't actually address any of the harms that happen in society. They further perpetuate home on the people that end up in them.

LL: Totally agree, hostile, sterile, harsh environment to be in.

LB: Going back to D itta and the conversation we had about what happened to Liridon these conversations about abolition. Actually, when you boil it down, it's about creating change. So nothing like that is happening. Around one person every day dies in prison in England and Wales. That is unacceptable. And Liridon and story reminds us that there's so much more that needs to be done to create transformative change.

MUSIC

LL: In the next two episodes, we'll be looking at people dying in our mental health system.

TN: Now when I got the news that he'd been killed, he had a massive, profound effect on me. Because when your family no matter how much time passes, you're still family and the impact is.

MUSIC

Credits

LB: We know that this is a really difficult episode. If you've been affected by any of the themes that have come up, please go to the links in the Episode Notes.

If you think other people would like Unlawful Killing, then please rate and review us wherever you get your podcasts, ratings and feedback really help others discover the show.

If you have a story to share, get in touch via communications@inquest.org.uk or on social media.

We'd also like to pay tribute to the thousands of bereaved families who have worked alongside INQUEST thank you to each and every one of you who have created powerful legacies for your loved ones, and contributed to important changes which protects all of us. Unlawful Killing is made in partnership with INQUEST and now presented by me Lucy Brisbane and Lee Lawrence, produced by Leila Hagman and Naomi Oppenheim, consultant producers Tash Walker and Adam Smith. The music in this podcast is by Dave Okumu.

This podcast is part-funded by the National Lottery Heritage Fund. We're grateful that this podcast series is supported by Hodge Jones and Alan a key law firm in the fight for what's right. Their lawyers help people right wrongs, fight injustice and defend people's rights in court. INQUEST have worked with Hodge Jones and Alan on countless cases from the Marchioness disaster of 1989 to the ongoing Essex mental health inquiry. Thanks also to the students from the Centre for Social Justice Research at the University of Westminster, who helped with the research for the podcast.

We'd also like to thank Dita Saliuka for speaking to us. You can find out more about the campaign against joint enterprise through the organization JENGbA. Their details are in the show notes

Unlawful Killing

Series 1 | Episode 5 

From Mikey Powell to Jess Durdy, who dies in the care of our mental health services?

Release Date: 11 January 2024

Season: 1

Episode: 5

Presenters: Lee Lawrence and Lucy Brisbane

Guests / Oral History interviewees featured: Tippa Napthali and Moira Durdy

Producers: Leila Hagmann and Naomi Oppenheim

Consultant Producers: Adam Zmith and Tash Walker (Aunt Nell)

Music: Dave Okumu

Content warning: Mental ill health, police violence, death, racism, suicide, selfharm and abuse

Episode length: 28:42

Transcript

LL: This episode contains stories about mental ill health, police, violence, death, racism, suicide, self-harm and abuse. Please be mindful when you choose to listen, we'll also be talking about self -inflicted deaths, which is the language we use at INQUEST around what is more commonly called suicide.

MUSIC

LL: You're listening to Unlawful Killing: death, resistance and the fight for justice.

LB: A podcast by INQUEST, the only charity fighting alongside families bereaved by deaths involving the state including police, prison, and mental health Services.

LL: I'm Lee Lawrence advocate and son of Cherry Groce, who was shot by the Metropolitan Police, which sparked the 1985 Brixton uprisings.

LB: And I'm Lucy Brisbane from INQUEST. In this series, we're diving into our 40 year history of campaigning. We'll be doing this through conversations with those at the centre of these stories.

LL: Episode Five, mental health, part one.

TN: So you know, when I got the news that he'd been killed, it had a massive, profound effect on me, because when your family, no matter how much time passes, you're still family, and the impact is still the same, because you it's not just about losing Mikey. It was about what I saw it was doing to my auntie and his brothers and sisters, the grief and the pain it was causing them.

LB: We spent the last two episodes looking at prisons and their fatal consequences,

LL: From Jake Foxall to Liridon Saliuka we looked at who dies in our prisons, what connects these deaths and the families left fighting for justice.

LB: But now we want to look at the people who die in the care of our mental health system

LL: And what happens when these systems of criminal justice and mental health care collide. LB: Mental health services are often framed as the caring alternative to policing and prisons, but we'll be looking at what happens when the very system designed to protect us fails to do just that. In this episode, we'll be hearing from two voices whose loved ones died due to the utter failure of mental health services in this country. While these are very different instances of state violence and neglect, we want to show just how far reaching the scale of the problem is and the communities at homes the most.

MUSIC

LL: So it's funny how you know mental health awareness now is everywhere, and the stigma around mental health has been broken down, so we have a better understanding of our mental health and mental well being, and the understanding that all of us can go through a kind of mental health episode, or can go through an experience or something could happen, which could off balance us. However, when we speak about people with mental health who die at the hands of the system, you know, whether it's in prisons or hands of the police or even in medical institutions, that is something that I feel we still don't talk enough about. There's still a lot of taboo around that and it's easy for people to come to their assumptions that, you know, if somebody had mental health issues and they were out of control and they had to be restrained or die as a result of that, that's reasonable, where we're privy to hearing those stories from the people who have died, their loved ones, who have campaigned for them, and I suppose for the listeners, I think it's important to understand the other side of the story and to hear it from the family's perspective, and the impact these deaths or killings have on not only the person themselves, but the loved ones and the community.

LB: Yeah, I think as a charity, INQUEST has this really broad role in looking across all these different quite separate and disparate systems, prisons, policing, mental health settings. But actually, when you look at what happens to people, it's all so intertwined, and the experiences across different settings and the interactions with all the different parts of the system, all often come together in individual stories. But the thing that feels very different with when you talk about mental health, you know, with policing and to some extent with prisons, there's some awareness of, like, this injustice and like, there's people going to go out on the streets and campaign against police violence, police brutality, injustices in prisons. It seems obvious, but when you're talking about people dying in mental health hospitals, the conversation feels very different, and the campaigns actually feel very separate, and there's not the same awareness. It feels like people think there's a lot more inevitability to people dying, especially suicides or self-inflicted deaths in mental health settings, so the families come up against a very different type of problem and a very different challenge in fighting for truth and justice and what that looks like. A recent conversation that's been happening in London and about the Metropolitan Police is that the Metropolitan Police have said they're no longer going to be responding to mental health calls, because very often police are on the front line of responding to people in mental health crisis, but very often we see that they're not equipped and also just not the appropriate people To be responding to people who need care and support, not restraint or handcuffs or whatever it is.

LL: As part of our oral history project, we spoke to Tippa Naphtali, a community and social justice campaigner. Tippa’s cousin Mikey Powell died after being violently restrained by West Midlands Police following a mental health crisis in 2003.

LB: We're going to start with Tippa telling us about Mikey and the impact that his death had on his family.

TN: But Mikey was the one that was really the mummy boy, and he was really attentive to her needs. And when I left school, I used to see Mikey all the time at dances and things like that, because he was very popular in the area. Everybody knew Mikey, and he used to hold blues parties and stuff like that. So we were never in our adult years and teen and teen years and adult years, we were we weren't really that close, but he was still my cousin. So you know, when I got the news that he'd been killed, it had a massive, profound effect on me, because when your family, no matter how much time passes, you're still family, and the impact is still the same, because you it's not just about losing Mikey. It was about what I saw it was doing to my auntie and his brothers and sisters, the grief and the pain it was causing them energised me to do more to support them.

LB: Mikey was a 38 -year -old black man and father of three. He'd previously experienced short episodes of mental ill health, but he knew how to look after himself and usually recovered on the seventh of September 2003 Mikey had a mental health episode at his mum's house, and she called the police. His mum, Clarissa, had called the police when Mikey was unwell before, and they'd respond helpfully. So she felt like that was a safe option. She thought they'd come and they'd take him to hospital, but that wasn't what happened. When West Midlands Police arrived. They drove a police car at him, and Mikey was hit. They beat him, they used CS gas, which is like pepper spray. Eight officers restrained Mikey for over 16 minutes. He was thrown into the back of a police van and driven to a police station, not a hospital, and later died.

LL: It's shocking, and it isn't. I'm not somebody who is adverse to knowing and hearing stories and even going through my own experience. But every time you hear these things, you just think, what the hell? Why would you come so heavy handed? Why would you knock him over? Why would it take 16 minutes to restrain him, and there's eight of you no wonder why he died because excessive force basically, that's all I'm visualising in my head when you've just told me the story, and how distraught must that mum be, that the people she called to help her and him are the same people that ended up killing him.

LB: She wanted care, but the police responded with violence, and that is the experience of many of the families that we've worked with, people who have died in police custody or in police contact. They've been having a mental health crisis. They need help, and even some of them were in hospital when the police were called, and then they've died at the hands of police, just to name a few of those people who have died over the years. Ibrahima Se y, Roger Sylvester, Olaseni Lewis, Sean Rigg, Kevin Clark, Oladeji Omishore.

LL: And Lucy, with all those names that you mentioned, is one common denominator, that they're all black men,

LB: exactly. And Tippa told us a bit about the history of racism and mental health care in this country.

TN: Well, one of the controversial cases which you may know about is David ‘Rocky ’ Bennett, young black man in a mental health institution restrained killed him. And even before that, before rocky black men in particular, were routinely diagnosed with schizophrenia, where their white counterparts, displaying the same sort of conditions, would not be and they would end up in the mental health system, drugged up to their eyes and notable to function because of the side effects of drugs. Mikey had seen all of that, so he didn't want to get into the into the system, and I'll come to him in the moment, but yeah, it was in the 80s, 90s, mental health system there wasn't really about care. It was just about incarceration and pacification, drugging people up to the eyeballs so that they just didn't function and couldn't then, you know, be they were just controlled. Yeah, it was all about control. It wasn't about developing their capacity to function as a human being, it was just about suppressing, suppressing them and keeping them kind of locked up for years in many cases,

LB: It's interesting that Tipper is talking here about the 70s, 80s. That's a time when we had a huge shift in mental health care in this country. So the last asylums where people were kind of just lock up, locked up and threw away the key, they were shut down off the back of years of campaigning from survivors and anti-psychiatry movements. And then we had the introduction of the new Mental Health Act, which was brought in under Margaret Thatcher. And actually that is the same Mental Health Act that we have today, although there have been reforms, that is the legal framework that we're operating within. But the 80s is also a time that INQUEST was set up, and it's the same time that your mum was shot by the police, a big moment of political and cultural shifts.

LL: Yeah, and what we're seeing through this podcast is that common theme around nothing changes unless we challenge the system to change, it's only when we come together and we apply that pressure that things change. And it's sad that there's never this self-reflection of what we're doing doesn't work. What we're doing is we're getting things wrong. It's causing harm, it's causing damage, and we need to change it for the right reasons, but it's off of the back of people's lives who have been sacrificed and loved ones having to muster up the energy to campaign against all of this sort of brutal behavior towards people who are mentally ill or we know that also, there's blatant racism that plays a part in it, too. And this kind of typical dangerous black man, they portray this image of, and they get society to be scared of this image and feel that this image needs to be controlled somewhat.

LB: Yeah and that kind of like mad, bad, dangerous narrative about black men is something that comes up in all the cases that we mentioned, and something that Tippa kind of brought us to thinking about around the history of racism in our mental health system. So that kind of history of racism is really important to talk about, but also it's very current, like we're talking about the 80s, but if you look at today, black men are 40% more likely to come into contact with mental health services through the criminal justice system. The system that's supposed to care for us is still institutionally racist, and these examples of deaths in mental health settings involving restraint and involving police still disproportionately impact black men. Black men are five times more likely to be detained under the Mental Health Act than white people. What does that tell us about what's happening now, not just in the 80s?

LL: What it tells us is that we need to be really concerned about this and suppose we've been covering whether it's you know, death in custody by police, you know, whether it's about self -inflicted deaths in prison, or whether it's, you know, in mental institutions, right? The bottom line is, you know, the black man has nowhere to go in terms of feeling safe in any of these environments.

LB: What's interesting in these conversations, though, is at the same time, there's this muchless explicit form of violence and neglect that affects huge numbers of people, but is muchless visible and obvious as a form of state violence. And that is the suicide, the self harm, the deaths that are happening to all kinds of people in our mental health hospitals and one of the people that knows that only too well is Moira Doherty. Moira's daughter Jess was 27 when she took her own life in a crisis house in Bristol in 2020.

LL: Lucy. What do we mean by a crisis house?

LB: A crisis house offers short-term support to people who are in mental health crisis, but it's outside of a hospital setting, so it's more like a residential house on a street you wouldn't even know it's there.

LL: Let us hear from Moira about some of the failures that led to Jess's death.

MD: It could have used a bit of common sense. Honestly. I just felt that common sense was so lacking in that place. Clear, re dflags, clear, you know, increasing risk. Or would you not get a doctor? Would you not get a clinic, clinician in? They could have done that, but they just didn't. I was told by somebody, oh, people always saying they're going to kill themselves. I've had so many meetings with so many people. People always say that. So how are you going to judge but where there are very specific warnings and indicators, and even the investigation found that there were real indicators, there the appropriate level of training, the appropriate level of clinical oversight of that institution would have kept her safe, because there would have been a step by step guide to what you do. And now that she's dead, they've put a step by step guide in. Well, why do they have to wait for her to die, for that to happen? Lack of oversight, lack of training, is really how I feel about the input that Jess got, the person that she needed to speak to the psychiatrist who was trying to start her own medication. She waited months to see a psychiatrist, and she was very suspicious of medication because she's had previous adverse effects, and the psychiatrist prescribed her a type of drug, but it's also an ant ipsychotic drug, so it's got dual it's got dual use. But of course, Jess, being Jess, having discussed it or went away and looked up this drug and found all these questions and went back, could the psychiatrist please tell her the answers to all these questions and then she could just, you know, decide to take the medicine? Well, the psychiatrist didn't come back to her was too busy, didn't respond so nobody responded none of the health workers looking after her picked up the issue of medication with her, because it was a bit of a touchy subject with her. She really was a little bit scared of her disengaging. There was no I felt that the system wasn't they weren't assertive enough, the people looking after her and I say that because I couldn't be assertive with Jess either I know what she was like. Was so many stupid things that they just don't do it and that makes me really angry, and this will carry on happening and carry on happening, because if they're not training, they're not having the appropriately paid staff with levels of training that they need. I mean, the people that they have working as community mental health people, they're not professionally qualified.

LL: So in light of this podcast, we spoke about not having all the answers, but exploring ideas. And people have different views around what. There's a common view around the system being broken, but it's around what needs to be done. Is where I feel there's different opinions and I suppose just listening to that, I'm hearing that it's about training, and it's about quality of staff and common sense and people knowing what they're doing and doing their job properly, and maybe people not being paid enough to do certain jobs, and that's why you're not getting the quality of service. So it's a different perspective in terms of what we were saying before, when we looked at, for example, Tippa, were saying, you know, this is an example of racism and how black people are, you know, seen and stereotyped and so on and so forth. Here's another aspect of that and I think what we all need to take away from this is that regardless of what part of the system you want to focus on, in terms of what's broken, we are looking at a broken system that does need to be fixed, and just because it doesn't affect you right now, today, in this moment, don't believe that it won't do one day, or won't affect one of your loved ones one day. So therefore, it's something that I think we just all need to be paying attention to. LB: Yeah, and I think we can all relate to the fact that there are times in the lives of our loved ones or of ourselves where we've needed support for our mental health, or where we might, you know, be looking for a bit of help, and we're in a situation where people are struggling to access mental health care at the very basic level, and the failures that Moira is talking about and what happened to Jess is not rocket science. Sometimes we're made to feel like people who are in mental health crisis, who are suicidal, like it's also difficult, and the systems it's very complicated to respond to these difficult, difficult people, which is kind of the feeling that you got. But. Actually, then what Moira is talking about what needs to change. It's not that difficult, like the staff who were there didn't have the skills that they needed to provide the care that was required. And this is someone who's already got to the point where she's been put in a crisis house because she's in crisis, and yet they're not equipped to respond and provide any level of care. So as we have increasing awareness around mental illness and how that can impact all of us, potentially, there's not so much awareness on what our mental health system does and how it does it. So you can obviously access mental health support through your GP, or if you're in a crisis situation, through A and E, or potentially, you can get to the point where you might be in a position where you're going to be detained under the Mental Health Act, not voluntarily, or you can be in a position where you're going to somewhere like a crisis house voluntarily, because you know that you need that support, and you know we have to be explicit in saying that for people listening who have experienced mental health crisis, there are services which will support people, and we're talking about the worst case scenarios.

However, there are instances when people try to access care at all these different points, and they're just not receiving the support that they need, and very often, they'll have been waiting already for a very long time for the support. And then it getst othis crisis point, and it's not there. So when we're talking about the systems and we're talking about people dying, we also need to look back, not just at the moment of crisis, but all the things that have happened before and the ways in which they've been failed, and when we're talking about self inflicted deaths and suicide, something that comes up a lot is that, you know, it's easy to blame or blaming individuals for their own deaths, rather than looking at the system failures. But something we also need to think about is how the system is responding differently to different people. Jess was a young woman, and young women are treated in a certain way by the system, and often failed in a particular way that's very gendered and there's a huge history around that that we definitely don't have time to get into. But there's also a different experience, as we've touched on for black men interacting with the system, and they responded to in a different way again, and that contribut es to the kind of response of the system that also intersects with issues like poverty, homelessness, failings in social care, experiences of trauma, abuse and the failure of our care services to respond to any of that, and it was

LL: Just made me think about me as a child after my mum was shot, and I was trauma and I had a lot of anger issues as a result of what I saw, right and so therefore, rather than me getting the support around that you're constantly getting, like, harsh treatment and punishment around it. So whether it's school or outside of school, when you have any contact with police, they are probably more harder on you, rather than trying to understand the fact that, okay, this this child has gone through some serious stuff, right? And it's quite understandable that this person is responding in this way. And what can we do to support this person knowing what we know?

LB: Yeah, and I think something that's really important to acknowledge in the conversations around mental health is that mental illness doesn't come out of thin air. Some people might be born with mental health challenges that will play out in their lifetime, but also we have to acknowledge the impact that social systems and social harms, like racism, like experiences of trauma, sexual violence, all these things have that create mental illness, and that is what the systems are also responding to. But often it's seen as a standalone thing, like you are unwell, you are angry, you are whatever, without acknowledging the things in our society and in our life experiences that are contributing to that, which is why we have these gendered dynamics, racialized dynamics, that play out in our mental health systems. So to finish, we're going to hear from Moira speaking about what Jess was like as a person

MD: Had I known about the pain of love when someone gave me a choice, I think I might have gone without the love in order to avoid the pain. She was very bossy, eldest child, really bright, and when she was a child, she was so happy. She was so so full of joy. I thought there'd be a long, long life for her to live. She was, she was very, switched on to injustice. I think our sort of politics would have always tended to be bit left. So she was, she was suspicious of big business and privilege and all of that. Well, she knew she had a privilege. She was, she was very aware of that, but she was very much for all like justice and equality, and she was going on marches and things like that. You know, she was quite. She found dealing with politicians and looking at the news and stuff where they always say one thing and do another. She found that really upsetting. She was quite sensitive in that, and she used to talk about how the news was ruining her mental health.

MUSIC

LB: In the next episode, we'll be speaking to Melanie Leahy about her campaign for justice after her son died in the care of Essex mental health services, and her successful campaign for a public inquiry.

ML: I wanted the truth. I knew right from the word go that I hadn't received the truth, and I think that's what every family wants, not to be lied to. But you know, we want true, we want accountability, our love done, for god’s sake, I want to know what happened to him and who's responsible.

MUSIC

Credits

LB: We know that this is a really difficult episode. If you've been affected by any of the themes that have come up, please go to the links in the Episode Notes.

If you think other people would like Unlawful Killing, then please rate and review us wherever you get your podcasts, ratings and feedback really help others discover the show.

If you have a story to share, get in touch via communications@inquest.org.uk or on social media.

We'd also like to pay tribute to the thousands of bereaved families who have worked alongside INQUEST thank you to each and every one of you who have created powerful legacies for your loved ones, and contributed to important changes which protects all of us. Unlawful Killing is made in partnership with INQUEST and now presented by me Lucy Brisbane and Lee Lawrence, produced by Leila Hagman and Naomi Oppenheim, consultant producers Tash Walker and Adam Smith. The music in this podcast is by Dave Okumu.

This podcast is part-funded by the National Lottery Heritage Fund. We're grateful that this podcast series is supported by Hodge Jones and Alan a key law firm in the fight for what's right. Their lawyers help people right wrongs, fight injustice and defend people's rights in court. INQUEST have worked with Hodge Jones and Alan on countless cases from the Marchioness disaster of 1989 to the ongoing Essex mental health inquiry. Thanks also to the students from the Centre for Social Justice Research at the University of Westminster, who helped with the research for the podcast.

We'd also like to thank Moira Dur dy, Tippa Nap thali and Omi Martin for participating in our oral history project.

Unlawful Killing

Series 1 | Episode 6 

A mother's relentless fight for answers after Matthew Leahy's death in Essex mental health services

Release Date: 18 January 2024

Season: 1

Episode: 6

Presenters: Lee Lawrence and Lucy Brisbane

Guests / Oral History interviewees featured: Melanie Leahy

Producers: Leila Hagmann and Naomi Oppenheim

Consultant Producers: Adam Zmith and Tash Walker (Aunt Nell)

Music: Dave Okumu

Content warning: Mental ill health, death, racism, suicide, rape, self-harm and abuse

Episode length: 33:42

Transcript

LB: This episode contains stories about mental ill health, death, racism, suicide, rape, self-harm and abuse. Please be mindful when you choose to listen, we'll also be talking about self-inflicted deaths, which is the language we use at INQUEST around what is more commonly called Suicide.

MUSIC

LL: You're listening to Unlawful Killing: death, resistance and the fight for justice.

LB: A podcast by INQUEST, the only charity fighting alongside families bereaved by deaths involving the state including police, prison, and mental health Services.

LL: I'm Lee Lawrence advocate and son of Cherry Groce, who was shot by the Metropolitan Police, which sparked the 1985 Brixton uprisings.

LB: And I'm Lucy Brisbane from INQUEST. In this series, we're diving into our 40 year history of campaigning. We'll be doing this through conversations with those at the centre of these stories.

LL: Episode six, mental health, part two.

ML: I wanted the truth. I knew right from the word go that I hadn't received the truth, and I think that's what every family wants, not to be lied to. But you know, we want true, we want accountability, our love done, for god’s sake, I want to know what happened to him and who's responsible.

LB: Last episode, we spoke about the people who die in the care of our mental health system, and what happens when the systems of criminal justice and mental health care collide.

LL: For this episode, Lucy spoke to Melanie Leahy, whose son Matthew died in the care of Essex mental health services and her relentless campaign for justice.

ML: Hi, I'm Melanie Leahy. I'm mum to Matthew Leahy, who died aged 20 within seven days of entering the mental health system. And who am I? I'm just a mum.

LB: Obviously, Matthew was just 20 when he died in 2012 whilst he was a patient at The Linden Center, which is part of the Essex mental health services, and three years later, an inquest found multiple various failings and missed opportunities in his care. Since then, there have been so many investigations and reports on his death and then other similar preventable deaths, so much has happened, but I wondered, Melanie, if you could just give us a brief overview of what happened to Matthew whilst he was in the care of those services that were meant to keep him safe.

ML: Wow, I'd really like to know the answer to that question, and that's why there's been so many investigations. Matthew entered the services 7th November 2012 and was dead by the 15 th. Paperwork was missing, observation notes were missing, staff went missing, paperwork was fortified after he died, we have not got the absolute truth of what happened to Matthew, and that's why I've campaigned for the last 11 years to secure the first ever statutory public inquiry into the mental health services in Essex. It doesn't matter how many investigations there's been, to be honest, the first investigation was done by the trust, which was a serious incident report, and it took me four and a half years to prove that that report wasn't worth the paper it was written on because that also was falsified and missed out vital information. So the journey has just been a horrendous, long journey to the truth.

LB: And so long 11 years, and you're still going.

ML: Yes, I mean, in that period, obviously, I thought four and a half years to have the open safety executive looking to the situation, and he finally prosecuted the trust of 1.5 million for the causation of 11 deaths, nobody held to account for ignoring warnings, ignoring recommendations, ignoring musters. We also went for a corporate manslaughter investigation that was also shelved after four and a half years. It's been a frustrating, tedious, emotional journey, not just for myself, but for the many, many families that have also been involved in that, in the whole process, and we've all been failed.

LB: I just wondered, what was it like going through those legal processes, first as a mother at a time of huge grief, and then moving into your journey also as a campaigner alongside that.

ML: It's been horrendous, days where I've been on the floor, on my knees, and then it's like waves of energy then emerge to continue to fight. Obviously, I had no legal background, but on the journey I learnt, I studied the internet, as a six police one of the DC’s says to me you must have an ology in this, all this stuff, and go, and you could go and advise many, many of the management at these trusts and police themselves, because, yeah, I've learned a lot about processes. Initially, there was no help, there was no support. As I reached out and social media was a great tool to be able to use, I met other families that have suffered the same trauma, the same losses, and we started to work together, and some of those had legal training, wereable to help me. Campaign groups lik eyourselves came on board to help at different times. It's just, you know, along the way, I think I've been blessed that different people have come in to support and to help to get to this stage.

LB: Yeah, you have an amazing group of families that you've met along the way. I was wondering if you can tell us a bit about what you knew about issues with mental health services before all this happened, and what you've learned since.

ML: Well, to be fair, if you're not involved in that system and don't have a loved one with that problem, I have to be honest, you tend to not think about it, you know. So I used to have a career where I took in people into house shares, vulnerable people, and I used to help them with their paperwork and stuff like that. But never really understood the mental health services or whether there was a problem, until, obviously we used it. And my mind was like, oh, you know, they just, they've got problems, and ignore it. And unfortunately, that is the way of the world, unless it affects you. You don't give a monkey's but once I started to understand and talk to people and look further into it, I was absolutely disgusted, and I couldn't believe it. And people nowadays will read some of the and hear some of the evidence that comes forward from the inquiry in the next few years, and they will be utterly shocked. It shocked me to the core, actually, what I've learned,

LB: because I know Melanie, that Matthew was actually one of six people to die at The Linden Centre between 2004 and 2015 and the initial inquiry that opened into Essex mental health services in their kind of first public report, they found that 1500 people had died while they were a patient or on a mental healthward or within three months of being disc harged over a 20 year period, and more and more stories keep coming forward. More and more people impacted by failures in Essex mental health services, you've mounted this huge campaign and come together with so many families, what would have made a differ ence for you at the start, in terms of the legal processes you've needed to do this, because the processes haven't given you the answers. But as a family member, if you turned up the investigation, the inquest, what is it that you would have wanted from those processes that you haven't got and that have led to this longer fight and the statutory inquiry now?

ML: I wanted the truth. I knew right from the word go that I hadn't received the truth, and I think that's what every family wants, not to be lied to. But, you know, we want truth, we want accountability. Our loved one died for go d’s sake, I want to know what happened to him and who's responsible. And you know, these figures, 1500 then suddenly become 2000 like so many months later, I did a Freedom of Information to ask how many people have died at the Linden? And it came back zero. And I knew that to be an absolute lion, because one of the boys that died, it was at Christmas. The undertakers weren't available. He was left dead in the room for over in towers before someone conquered him. Other than that, like Matthew, he was transported to mid Essex hospitals, where they used to pronounce dead there. So this is what they do. They move the bodies to a different hospital, have them declared that elsewhere and lose the death from the figures. So I don't believe for a minute that 1500 2000 of the correct figures. And even when Essex police were looking into how many people died by ligature in the cent res, they came up with a figure of 125 but the DCR in the case is, look, we still cannot be sure that figure. We had to go to Manchester to get a university study to get figures, because figures have not been kept. So we are now like we're calling for families to come forward that you know, have been lost over the years. They need to step forward and please share their evidence. And we've got more, more numbers to come.

LB: You know, obviously, now, both of us are very knowledgeable about these areas, but the listener would be shocked by what you've just said to understand that our NHS mental health services do not know how many people are dying in their care.

ML: Well, not only that, I mean, of the 1500 that old chair, declared. She said they didn't know how 900 of them had even died.

LB: It just shouldn't be that hard.

ML: Do these people not matter? Do their deaths not matter? It's horrendous in this day and age. In our modern society, we don't know that information. How long have we had computers to keep these records? It's disgusting, and it just shows did these people not matter? Every single one of them.

LB: And can you explain so I know we've mentioned that there's now the statutory public inquiry into Essex mental health services as a whole, which is looking over a long period of time. Can you explain why you called for an inquiry, and what that statutory inquiry means?

ML: I called for an inquiry because I was told that was the only way that I could get staff in under oath, I was given an independent investigation by Nadine Dorries. She commissioned that that's not what the country asked for. We had 109,000 people on a curtail petition asking for the statutory powers. We've now waited another three years. Finally secured it. 16,000 staff were asked to give evidence to this independent inquiry. I think something like 14 or 11 and 14 came forward, says it all, doesn't it? But like the chair said, she now has the power to compel staff, if they don't come forward, it will be criminal offense, and that pleases me, but not only me, but the families that also want their answers that now hopefully these staff, you know, will be questioned. At Matthew's inquest, you know, the place, what we told you'll get your answers. I had two senior staff that were involved in what happened to him couldn't be found. We had other nurses and staff that weren't there at the inquest. I honestly don't know how it concluded with the outcome it did. I had a really good jury that could see through the fog, you know. So the inquest process for me was a complete farse it really was. So this inquiry is very these people on the stand.

LB: And through your time as a campaigner and meeting other families, what have you learned about Essex mental health services. What's particularly going wrong there?

ML: Everything, you name it, staff are sleeping. They can't they come in working for agencies. They might be caught, and they lose their job. They go work for another agency and come back and do it again. There's no registration. Half the time there's lack of staff on theward, we've got sexual abuse occurring. It's being ignored. You know, mental health patient cries rape. They're making it up. Paperwork is being falsified. Observations aren't being done correctly, you name it. It's happening. Senior Management sitting there their little offices, pushing around Board Papers. Middle management are pushing around reviews and reports and plagiarising things. And you know, from the top down to the bottom, nothing is running in my mind as it's meant to be running. There's policies and they're being ignored and they're being broken. It's not rocket science. What's going wrong?

LB: And because, you know, you've learned so much now about what's happening from other families and from everything that you have learned and read over the years, what do you think needs to change? What do you hope the inquiry will call for?

ML: I have asked that the chair, you know, she's talking about making recommendations. I've heard recommendation after recommendation. Listen. This is like the rhetoric is repeating itself. We need accountability. We need must do's, it's not should those recommendations. We need must do's and registration of staff. We need to know who's coming in theward. The training needs to be improved. If management have to give a higher wage to secure more superior staff, then that's what they need to do. You know, the whole system needs a radical shake-up, and not just in Essex across the nation. So, you know, my hope is that we've started here in Essex, and we send the people across the country

LB: So it's kind of like a total system shift, a big, radical change needs to happen in our mental health services.

ML: It really does, because we know it's happening everywhere. I mean, I even get messages from Canada, keep doing what you're doing there, because whatever changes you're making here are rippling over to us. America's is just as bad.

LB: Its important, I think, to hear you say as well that obviously a lot of attention from the inquiry has been brought on Essex, and there's been through your campaigning and your work in the media, massive exposure of the issues in Essex. But we know at INQUEST, and we know from other media reports and investigations that these issues are national. But Essex in particular seems to have a real issue.

ML: I think, you know, Essex has an issue because it's been highlighted now where I think last call with the solicitors that are helping us is we're up to 118 families now. Yeah, it is happening everywhere. You know, not everybody. We want to get help. We need to get help. I spoke to different so many different people.

LB: How important has that legal support been? For you. How did you end up working with those lawyers? And what difference has it made?

ML: Oh, amazing. I think I started talking to Nina Ali at Hodge Jones and Allen probably over five years ago, telling them my story. And finally, Nina says, right, yeah, I'm going to get involved. And even till today, they're still working on then they're not even getting paid. The inquiry still has not paid them, so now they're working with all the families. They're doing a lot of no-win, no-fee cases for them. They're supporting them at INQUEST, and they're talking to patients. They're talking to the whistleblowers. So yeah, the call is there. They've been an absolute boss in I can't thank Lina and Priya enough, literally, for the work they done, when you know something's not right, and then suddenly someone comes in, looks at the evidence and actually believes it with you, you thi nk you're not going mad, you know, I saw through, I saw through the trees, and then someone with a legal background sees through the trees as well and gives you that confidence. Yeah, invaluable.

LB: It's amazing. Something that I have really learned since working at Inquest is our image of lawyers is just like, you know, very professional. They turn up, they do the job, they get paid. But actually, so many of the lawyers that we work with, they care so much about the issues that they're working on, and they're prepared to just go above and beyond, alongside families, to actually do work that makes a difference.

ML: Yeah, and they're not just sitting in their offices. They have been coming and going out to different meetings, and they've even come out on the street and campaigned and held our banners, held our coffins, and walked beside us. You know, amazing like INQUEST as well. You know, they've been out on the streets with us as well. Big thank you.

LB: You mentioned a coffin. Can you tell us about what that is?

ML: Yeah, literally, it was a centrepiece of part of our campaign, and we walked down the street with a homemade covid with names all over it. It was an idea that I actually stole from Mar cia Rigg, and I just thought, What a great idea. So we made a coffin, and, yeah, it's a really poignant symbol. So we've had the solicitors all of us. We stood on top hats and towels. We walked down to Downing Street, and we placed it with a reef, and it's on e of our centre pieces at our campaign in when we go out on the streets, sadly, it does get more and more covid in names as the day's progress, because obviously, more and more are dying. You know, there come a day where we won't be able to add any more names.

LB: Well, hopefully that will be because there won't be more names to add from your campaigning, and hopefully the changes are going to be made. I was going to ask you mentioned their learning from Marcia Rigg, being inspired by other family campaigners, which we love to hear about, can you tell us a bit about the families that you've met along the way, and what difference that's made joining forces or learning from other family campaigners

ML: through INQUEST group, I did go to a few family events, and I met other campaigners. I marched with united family and friends campaign last year, an amazing experience, and stood up on their platform and spoke. And you know the families they are such a powerful testament to. You know the loved ones that they've lost. And I love every single one and respect every single one of them for the work that they're doing to try and obviously, again, get their answers, but also to stop these deaths happening, stop the brutality within the police system.

LB: I know you're working and fighting alongside so many families doing amazing things, but I just want to commend you for the work that you've done, and you've achieved so many things, and you've brought such huge attention to the issues that you're fighting on, and huge attention to the mental health services and the failures. And I just want to say thank you from INQUEST, thank you from everyone that's going to benefit from the work that you're done and just really commend you.

ML: Thank you.

LB: because it's not easy, and we've heard that it's not easy, and it takes a lot of your energy. So thank you for everything that you're doing and continue to do.

ML: Thank you very much. Thanks for the opportunity.

LB: It wasn't a question, but just had to say. But on that note, I do have a question, which is, if you could go back to the days just shortly after Matthew died and tell yourself one thing about this journey that's followed, what would it be?

ML: Wow, I wouldn't change it. I'm really glad, from you know, having lost Matthew, that I've been on this journey. And before I go, can I just say, I have to say that will Powell, who fought for he's still fighting 33 years, I think, to pull people through account a nd get the truth in his son, Robbie's death. That man, I spoke to him at length early days, and he said, Mel, if you're going to do this, you need to be in for the long haul. And I say, Well, I will be in for the long haul. That man inspired me, and he still inspires me to this stage. This is why I wouldn't change it, because I've met such amazing on the journey. You know, this is Matthew's legacy. Now we will change the mental health system. I'm determined we will.

LB: And I have one last question for you. See, we've spoken about the issues of mental health services, the way in which Matthew was failed. Other families have been failed. But first and foremost, we know Matthew was your son. You loved him. He was a person before all of this that mattered. Can you tell us a little bit about who he was, and one thing that you'd like everyone to know about him,

ML: Matthew was amazing. He excelled at school, gone into grammar school, set up and doing business. Didn't get poorly to be about 19 dead by 20. It was so quick. And you know, I always remember he trained as a lifeguard. He rescued two ladies from the water, saved their lives. And all I just remember is the fact that when he needed his life saving that wasn't offered to him, he was one to want to protect other people. He wanted to protect the girls on theward he knew they were getting sexually abused and raped. And the one thing I suppose I want them to remember is that he would want this. He would want to save lives. So for me, he would be that proud that I'm trying to do that in his name. He was an amazing person, my angel. Do you know I always remember I just viewed his body and asked to leave, and I left the hospital, and I put the radio on, and I said, I've sent out my thoughts. And I said, Matt, what should I do? What should I do? And Emily Sandy came on, put it in all the papers, tell everyone about it, and that's what I did. And I never stopped.

MUSIC

LB: I love that moment. I love that way that Melanie ended that interview and he and hearing about Matthew as a person, and he would have wanted her to campaign. But it was weird interviewing Melanie without you, Lee, because I felt like I could imagine all the things that you would be saying as a family and a campaigner. So I really want to hear what did you think about what Melanie said?

LL: Well, first of all, I think you've done exceptionally well in terms of the interview. And I felt like she really opened up, and you got a real insight into not only Matthew, her son and what he was like, but where her drive and her sense of purpose comes from, and a continuous work, and the way she wrapped up by saying he was a lifeguard, he saved two people's lives, and when he needed saving, nobody was there, and that she feels he would want her in his name and his legacy to save others. I thought, wow, how powerful was that? LB: Yeah, so poignant. And what was amazing is that I've seen Melanie on the news loads. I've heard her speaking at protests. She has been campaigning for a long, long time, and she does a lot of interviews, but to sit down and get that level of in depth conversation, and really hear those kind of poignant moments in her life and in her campaign about Matthew and also the way that she linked up with other families. That's something that you really don't hear about as much like all the shoulders that you stand on, all the people you stand alongside her being inspired by Marcia Rigg and an idea that Marcia had at the protest her meeting that father, like, really early on in her campaign, that felt really moving, and it felt like I hadn't really heard that be fore. I didn't know that.

LL: Yeah, and I think we can underestimate, like that sort of peer-to-peer support, how effective and how powerful that can be when you're speaking to somebody who has walked that path, who understands what you're going through. And although people who are fighting for their loved ones don't ever choose to be campaigners, it's something that you find yourself in. But I think the power of somebody who is that connected is so you're vulnerable enough for people to have a lens into how deeply this cuts, and yo u're strong enough. You have the strength because you know why you're fighting to supersede all those challenges that are there to prevent you from getting the kind of recognition for that person that that's needed. But you're willing to go the extra mile because of how much this person means to you. So in this interview, you really get a sense of the combination of when that comes together, how powerful that can be.

LB: Yeah, and it's really important to acknowledge that what Melanie has achieved, alongside all the people that she's been working with, the lawyers INQUEST, other families, what Melanie has achieved in securing a statutory public inquiry into Essex mental health services is huge

LL: Lucy for the listener. Can you explain what a public inquiry is and how it works?

LB: So statutory public inquiry is part of the legal processes that can respond to deaths or other big issues people might more commonly know about. Or the Grenfell public inquiry or the covid public inquiry, those are statutory inquiries, and they have the power to compel witnesses. They will examine all the evidence a bit like a court or a bit like a sort of bigger inquest, and they have the power to make recommendations, maybe to the government or to individual institutions with the intention of creating the changes that are required to respond to and prevent the same issues or the same deaths from happening again. This is the first time a public inquiry of that nature has looked into deaths in a mental health trust as a whole, into so many deaths, and the hope is that that will shine a light across all the mental health settings where people are being failed. And she spoke about the ways in which people are being failed, the things that we know that are happening, but the power of those inquiries is as independent they can legally compel witnesses, is so important. So that's what she's achieved so far, and she's got so much more that she can do

LL: So Lucy, the other thing that I picked up from Melanie was the fact that she mentioned other people who inspired her, gave her ideas. And one of the people she mentioned was Marcia Rigg, who I know really well. And it was the coffin idea, right, which I thought was really creative about putting all the names of the people who have died in mental health institutions in Essex on the coffin and delivering that with a reef. I thought, Wow. I just could imagine it. Picture that in my mind, and Marcia is a force to be reckoned with. I will never forget when I was going through the case with my mum. I didn't know Marcia, and I saw her sitting in a restaurant somewhere, and I, and I wanted to go and speak to her and just introduce myself and say, you know, I'm going for a similar thing right now, and just connect. And I didn't, and I was kicking myself, and I said, the next time I get opportunity to speak to where I'm definitely gonna, you know, have a proper reason. And luckily that opportunity came, and she's like, she's like, a sister, you know, we when we see each other, she's like, Yes, brother, and I'm like, Yes, sis. And I think because their names come up, I think it's important to maybe give a brief overview of who is Marcia Rigg and who has she been campaignin gfor.

LB: So Marcia Rigg is on her family reference group at INQUEST, as is Lee. She's also prominent campaigner around policing and racism in this country, and that's because her brother Sean Rigg died in 2008 at Brixton police station, similar to what we've been speaking about, he was experiencing a mental health crisis, and he was restrained by police officers with excessive force, and he ended up dead. Marcia has been campaigning ever since, and she does so as part of the United families and friends campaign, and that has definitely inspired a lot of families I love. She's got, like, celebrity status here, and I think we're definitely going to speak to her at some point later in the series.

LL: Yeah I think it would be great to get her in

LB: And just finally, bringing it back to Melanie, that point she made about that moment when she, you know, asked the world, the universe, what would Matthew want her to do? And that song came on, put in all the papers, tell everyone about it that felt so moving and so poignant, and that's exactly what she's done over the last 11 years, which felt so powerful and what a way to end.

LL: Yeah, and so purposeful. And I think if we was all to sit down and think there's many times that we put out a question, and we might, we may get a sign, and we don't act upon it, we don't move with the same level of purposefulness, right? And I think when you do, I think you know that's an example of what can happen when you really are in tune, and you listen and you respond, you allow yourself to be guided, because that's another thing of we are fighting for our loved ones. And I think most people would agree that we feel led by them because we're just being their voice. So the more we hear and listen and respond, I think the more we actually make happen.

MUSIC

LB: You that brings us to the end of series one, part one. We've now had six episodes exploring the fatal consequences of policing prisons and mental health services and how these systems reinforce each other. We've heard from powerful voices and campaigners about their loved ones who have died the failures that led to their deaths and their ongoing fights for change. But this is really just the tip of the iceberg. There's so much more that we haven't even begun to touch on.

LL: You know, we've had such a rich insight into all these, you know, different experiences, these different cases, these different examples of injustices by the system. It's hard to kind of really understand what people mean by that. And the way that we've managed to break that all down throughout the episodes, it allows people to kind of have a lens into each different institution, whether it's prison, police or mental health, and to understand the kind of unique issues that people are faced with that really affect us all and that we should all be concerned with.

LB: In the next part of the series, we'll be delving into what truth, justice and accountability looks like when somebody dies in the care of the state.

LL: We'll continue to hear from families at the heart of these struggles, as well as lawyers, campaigners and others who have joined their fights

MUSIC

Credits

LB: We know that this is a really difficult episode. If you've been affected by any of the themes that have come up, please go to the links in the Episode Notes.

If you think other people would like Unlawful Killing, then please rate and review us wherever you get your podcasts, ratings and feedback really help others discover the show.

If you have a story to share, get in touch via communications@inquest.org.uk or on social media.

We'd also like to pay tribute to the thousands of bereaved families who have worked alongside INQUEST thank you to each and every one of you who have created powerful legacies for your loved ones, and contributed to important changes which protects all of us. Unlawful Killing is made in partnership with INQUEST and now presented by me Lucy Brisbane and Lee Lawrence, produced by Leila Hagman and Naomi Oppenheim, consultant producers Tash Walker and Adam Smith. The music in this podcast is by Dave Okumu.

This podcast is part-funded by the National Lottery Heritage Fund. We're grateful that this podcast series is supported by Hodge Jones and Alan a key law firm in the fight for what's right. Their lawyers help people right wrongs, fight injustice and defend people's rights in court. INQUEST have worked with Hodge Jones and Alan on countless cases from the Marchioness disaster of 1989 to the ongoing Essex mental health inquiry. Thanks also to the students from the Centre for Social Justice Research at the University of Westminster, who helped with the research for the podcast.

And finally, we'd like to thank everyone who's participated in our oral history project. We'd also like to thank Melanie Leahy for speaking to us. You can find out more about the Essex mental health inquiry through the link in our show notes.

Unlawful Killing

Series 2 | Episode 1: Truth 

Lee Lawrence on the death of his mother and fighting through the inquest process

Release Date: 23 May 2024

Season: 2

Episode: 1

Presenters: Lee Lawrence and Lucy Brisbane

Guests / Oral History interviewees featured: 

Producers: Leila Hagmann and Naomi Oppenheim

Music: Dave Okumu

Content warning: Racism, police violence and death

Episode length: 36:07

Transcript

LB: Before we start, this episode contains stories of racism, police violence and death. Please be mindful when you choose to listen.

MUSIC

LL: You're listening to unlawful killing, death resistance and the fight for justice.

LB: A podcast by INQUEST, the only charity fighting alongside families bereaved by deaths involving the state, including police, prison and Mental Health Services.

LL: I'm Lee Lawrence advocate and son of Cherry Gr oce, who was shot in Brixton, in 1985, by the Metropolitan Police.

LB: And I'm Lucy Brisbane from INQUEST. In this series, we're diving into our history of campaigning. We'll be doing this through conversations with those at the centre of these stories.

LL: Series Two Episode One Truth. This is a favourite saying was that nothing happens before the time. And I realised that through the case, that it took my mum's death for the truth to come out about what happened to her. But I understood what she meant when nothing happens before its time.

LB: In series one, we talked about the fatal consequences of policing prisons and mental health services, and how these interlocking systems fail to keep us safe. Now, we want to use seriest wo to look at what comes next for the families of those who die.

LL: So obviously, when a member of the public dies in suspicious circumstances, there's a criminal investigation. But what happens when the suspect is the state?

LB: In this episode, we're going to explore a key process that takes place when a person dies at the hands of the state, and INQUEST.

LL: So, in the last series, I spoke in detail about being an 11-year -old boy and witnessing my mum being shot by the police, and what that was like. And in this episode, I'm going to be speaking more in detail about what happened when she passed in 2011, which was 26 years after she was shot. And then there was an inquest triggered into her death, which at the time, I had no idea what an inquest was.

LB: So we are the charity INQUEST. And we support bereaved families through the processes which follow a death, including inquests and investigations. An inquest takes place after any unexpected or unnatural death, not just state-related deaths. But there's a slightly deeper process when a state-related death takes place and is longer, more in-depth look at what happened. What happened in your mom's case?

LL: So with my mum's case, it was quite complex, to be honest, because normally, in these situations, you know, when there's contact with the police, or it happens in prisons, or mental health institutions, that person would probably die, you know, immediately after, and then that will spark an inquest. However, in our case, my mum was shot back in 1985. And it was 26 years later, that she died. And for us, when mum passed, we were just thinking, okay, mum's passed, which we started to think about the funeral arrangements in our mind. And there was no kind of inkling that this was going to trigger off any type of process because there was a criminal trial that happened two years after my mom was shot. And the person Douglas Lovelock was acquitted. So as far as we were concerned, that was it, and there was no justice, and we got to live with that. So I remember going to get my mum's death certificate because you need that to start the funeral arrangements and speaking to the woman, and she said to me, hold on a minute. I'm not sure that I can actually give you the certificate at this stage. And I said, why? And she said, because the doctor has written something in notes, and because of that, it may trigger off an inquest. So, I've got to speak to the coroner's office, she said to clarify whether an inquest is gonna take place or not. So, at that point, as I said before, I had no idea of what Inquest was, but I knew I needed to find out. And that was where the journey started for me in terms of understanding what Inquest was all about.

LB: Inquest take place in coroner's courts. And they're set up to establish the answers to four key questions, which are, who died, when and where did they die? And most importantly, how did they come to their death? So, they come to a conclusion, but it's not a criminal trial. It's not about culpability. It's about fact-finding.

LL: For me, and for my family, it was a difficult one, because understanding that an inquest is not a criminal trial that nobody, you know, as a result of an inquest will be necessarily held accountable for what happened was a hard pill to swallow. It was getting your head around that. But still appreciating the importance of this process. And at the very least, to be able to have the truth known, exposed. And for that to be a public record.

LB: Yeah. What do you say about not knowing what an inquest was or not knowing that that was going to happen? It's a really normal experience, families are just brought into this process. They're not necessarily even expecting. And you have to go through and work out what's actually going on? Who's going to be there. So, what did that look like for you, you turn up at Coroner's Court. What's happening?

LL: Well, for us, there was these preliminary hearings first, so they were trying to decide was there even going to be an inquest, which was really difficult, because it's like, there's this thing that may happen that for you, you really want it to happen, because it's important. So you could be getting your hopes up for something that may or may not even happen in the first place. So that bit was, you know, the first hurdle.

LB: And you're going to these hearings, right, in a Coroner's Court. There's a coroner, who has been appointed to answer these questions, what happened and everything. And then the coroner decides whether or not they're going to hold a full inquest, where they're going to have people come in and give evidence and examine things in more detail. You've also just lost your mum. And then you're also having this new layer put on top of it of this legal process. But it's not a criminal process, and you're learning what it is what was that like?

LL: It was difficult. And I remember going into the Coroner's Court, when we was having the preliminary hearings, and feeling like it was them against you. As almost like says David and Goliath type of scenario. And walking in there with no representation, because we couldn't get legal aid. And having the Metropolitan Police have teams of lawyers in the room, you've got Hertfordshire establishment with teams of lawyers in the room. And then the officer who shot my mum has teams of lawyers. And then there's just you with no representation, and you have this coroner, who in my opinion, I felt was quite bias. So, it's almost like you've got these four people or

LB: Professionals. This is their jobs. They're used to being in these rooms.

LL: Exactly. And so you feel like it’s all stacked against you. And in our case, in particular, there was an internal investigation done at the time when my mum was shot, and we wanted to get access to that.

LB: You'd never seen it.

LL: We'd never seen it before. And so, the challenge was the coroner saying, well, you need to give a reason of why you want that report. Before we can release it,

LB: This evidence that should surely you should have access to

LL: Exactly. And in order to do that you have to give a legal argument, which I'm not a lawyer right. So therefore, your hands are tied in this situation. And we just had to keep getting it adjourned. Because, you know, we didn't have representation, but we knew we need this, this document. So that was really, really challenging to deal with and frustrating. And for every time it's a journey, it's months and months of not knowing kind of trying to prepare yourself for the next stage. As every part for me personally was you just had to focus on that next hurdle.

LB: Yeah

LL: You couldn't even think about the end result which was having this hearing, having a truth heard so on and so forth.

LB: So those hearings, those are pre-inquest reviews. And that will happen in every case when they're trying to establish what is the scope of that inquest gonna be how limited or how expansive that scope will be? What additional questions do they need to answer? A coroner is a bit like a judge. They kind of preside over the core and they manage everything that's going on. They speak to the lawyers, the lawyers make representations to them. And families just very often turn up to these processes. And we'll never have lawyers. And we'll have to go through and just see what happens and try their best. But I think also something that's important to acknowledge is that an inquest is intended to be a non-adversarial process, which means it's not meant to be like an argument where everyone's against each other you versus all these lawyers. The intention and how it's framed, is that this is just a fact-finding mission. Everyone here is neutral. All the state parties are just here to learn the lessons here the truth, but what we know actually, and exactly as you described an experience, it is us against them, the lawyers in the room, are there really to protect the reputations of their clients, and essentially, make sure that they're not criticized. Whereas a family is truly there to find out what's actually happened and establish the truth. So, you turn up, you've got no lawyers, you've got no access to legal aid. What did you do? How did you get lawyers? What happened next?

LL: I remember going to the preliminary hearings, and I was getting some advice for a lawyer. And he just kept saying to me get it adjourned till you can secure legal aid. And I remember going in there and for the third time and saying, I need to get this adjourned. We haven't got legal adjourned, and the coroner looking at me in a really stern, Margaret Thatcher-type persona. And she said to me, Mr. Lawrence, this is the third time you've been in this Coroner's Court and had this adjourned. The next time you're here, this inquest will go ahead with or without legal representation. And I just remember feeling like this is just so unfair, and feeling that she had no sympathy for the position that we were in. And that led me to believe that she wasn't neutral in the situation, either. And I remember just saying to her, in response to that, by hook or by crook, the next time I'm here, I will have representation. I said to my siblings, we go public about what's happening to us. And we've got to start a campaign to try and get this legal aid.

LB: So Legal Aid is necessary if you want to secure access to a lawyer that is paid for by the public purse, or the police, lawyers, prisoners, everyone else that's taxpayer funded, we pay for that. But for families, you turn up at this process that you've come to through no fault of your own. And you're expected to advocate for yourself to Access Legal Aid, or pay for lawyers, out of your own purse. So at INQUEST since we were set up, we have campaigned so that families have access to legal aid to level the playing field, no matter what, essentially now, through our campaigning families, in certain circumstances have access to exceptional case funding where they have automatic non-means-tested legal aid. And that's after decades of a completely unfair process where families don't have that. But when you came to your inquest, that type of legal aid funding didn't exist. So how did you come to getting lawyers and secure the support that you needed?

LL: As I said, we decided to go public that was the first thing was set up this online campaign, with Change.org. And there was a journalist who’d contacted me some years before wanting to talk to me about my mum's case, which I wasn't ready to do at the time. But I thought to myself, I'm ready now because I need something to o, you know, I was under so much pressure, because it was the very first time I was gonna go public, and speak about what happened to my mum. And so therefore, I was really nervous. I was really anxious. And I was just hoping and praying that I was doing the right thing. So we done the interview. And at the end of it, he turned around, and said to me, so have you been in contact with INQUEST? The organisation? And I said, No, who's who's INQUEST? And he says, so you don't know anything about them? And I said, No. And he goes, Okay, I'm going to give you their number. And you should contact them because they support people who are going through inquests. So, I called them and I got the answer machine and left a message. And then someone came back to me straight away. And within a couple of days, I'd got a phone call to say, we've got some lawyers. And at this point, we still hadn't secured legal aid. We had the campaign running, so this lawyers firm called B at Murphy had agreed to represent us regardless, and we need to meet us to discuss the case. So all that was happening in the background, but I just remember saying to myself, I still want this legal aid. I felt like we deserve to have legally as you said, because the man Hertfordshire Lovelock, who shot my mom will be represented by taxpayer’s money. So I thought we deserve to have representation too.

LB: So you've contacted journalists, who started campaigning, you've secured lawyers who are going to help you inquest are standing by your side through this process. But you're also still in the middle of a time of huge grief. You've just lost your mum, why did you want to invest so much energy into these legal processes? And what did you actually hope to get out of it?

LL: It was my unconditional love for my mum. First of all, I saw what happened. I saw what she went through the suffering, the pain, how that affected her whole life, as a result of that bullet, and so when she passed, all of that came flooding back in that stuff that you put to one side, or you suppress, to just try and get on cope with life, and survive, you know, came to the surface. Now remember, going into the grave, the day after my mum was buried, I went back to the cemetery, and the cemetery was closed. And I jumped over the fence, it was quite dark, and I'm going through trying to find her grave, and I found it. And I remember the feeling, no sense of fear, because, you know, going into cemetery in the late night, you know, can be quite spooky. But all of that went out the window. And I just vented in all this anger, everything just came out. I remember just really saying like, you know, look what they've done to you. And I was so hurt about what she went through. And I just made a commitment in that moment. That, because I felt like I wanted to do something. And it could have been in a negative way trying to seek revenge. But I just prayed that if this inquest is supposed to be, I'm gonna pour all of my energy into this process. So that's what I did, I channelled that energy into this inquest with the hope that this means something.

LB: I just sit need to sit with that for a minute. Because I think that's such a beautiful way of saying it, we talk about these fairly dry legal processes that are disconnected from any humanity. But actually, what you're walking into that room with is so much love, also so much anger, so many questions that you need to be answered, so that you can move forward in your processing of everything that happened, and move forward in your grief. And the hope is that those processes can provide the answers that you need, and can give you some access to truth, and maybe some sense of closure on that chapter. For some families, that is what happens. And the inquest is a really important and significant process. And often, that is through a significant amount of fighting and pushing. For other families, the inquest ends up not being a useful process or not giving them the answers that they were looking for. But a really important part of it all, and you kind of touched on it is that you want to have access to all the evidence and all the information and in legal processes, that's called disclosure. And that seems so obvious that as a family, you should be able to see everything about your mom and see everything about what happened. But that's not actually, as you've described, what happens very often, and you have to kind of keep fighting and keep going through that. I guess, as well. What you kind of touched on earlier is you had this criminal trial right of the police officer individually, who shot your mum and his actions were examined in that criminal trial. Obviously, ultimately, you didn't get the justice there in that process. The inquest was another opportunity to come back to looking at some of the questions that weren't explored then, and finding out more about what happened. So, what else could you find out through that process?

LL: I think it's important to say or to speak about the difference in the different processes as well. The first trial was brought by the state. So, we had no say in that we were just witnesses in the case. With inquest was led by the family. You know, there were questions that we wanted answers to. So therefore, we were a little bit more in control about how this whole thing is going to pan out, and about what's important to find out and the questions to be asked. And when we've got access to that informat ion around the case, in particular, the internal investigation report, and at a time, that's when you begin to realize that, okay, you've gone from being in the room, and being, you know, kind of like on the receiving end of what took place, but not knowin gwhat led up to that moment. Because for us, the focus was on the person who pulled the trigger. But through going through the material, we then understood that there were 30 officers in the house that day, that there were other people making decisions about the planning and implementation of that way that morning, and you have a wider picture. And there's also some validation around what you felt it felt wrong, it felt like something wasn't right at the time, instinctively, intuitively, but all of this evidence now joins all those dots. And you're like, I wasn't imagining this, this is really happened. And this information proves that what I felt was real, too. And it also made sense, in a horrible way. But in getting all the information, I saw why my mum was shot that day, or why someone was gonna get shot that day, and what people were thinking and how they were planning, and how they were looking at us as black people from that particular community.

LB: That's so important, because there is a focus on criminal trials and accountability and holding one person or one institution responsible. But actually, so much of what we're seeing, and the whole point of an inquest is about looking at the systems, and how the broader systems contribute to individual deaths. And then if you look at that, collectively, you can see how the broader systems contribute to patterns of deaths. And you can pull out the kind of understanding around discrimination, marginalization, police racism is one example. But it's kind of where INQUEST comes in as an organisation is that we try and support individual families in pulling out those systemic issues through these processes. And then highlighting those issues on a bigger scale in the hope that it contributes to change.

LL: So for us, it was like, you know, those movies where you watch at the beginning of the movie, and you see somebody getting killed, like you see everything happened. And then the rest of the movies is playing itself out in terms of how did this happen. So you kind of gotten backwards to understand why this incident happened in the first place. And that's what I felt the inquest for was like for us, we knew my mum was shot by the police, we knew was wrong at the time, because of the way that happened in the way the officer acted at the time. But we never understood the details, which led that officer to pull that trigger. So for me, there was just a burning desire to have the truth heard about what happened to my mum,

LB: I love that way of putting it like the film, you know, the ending at the beginning. And then you're on a journey towards understanding what happened and finding the truth. I think that's how it is for so many families. And also there's this part of it that's about, you know, what's happened, the worst has happened. But understanding how that happened is such an important point of processing it and moving forward. Every single death is like an individual family, against the system and you pour all this energy in, in order to fight for your loved one, defend them against the system, understand what happened. Go through all this. But at what cost? How much does it delay grief? How much does having all this new information kind of add to the trauma and the difficulty of processing this? And then what do you get out of that?

LL: The cost is essentially unmeasurable, it can cost your relationships. It can cost your friendships, it can cost your house you know your livelihood, there's so much that that process can take away your mental wellbeing, your physical health. What probably was slightly different in my situation was I thought that the worst that had already happened. You know, when the incident happened, I was there and that's rare for someone to witness So I felt the damage had already been done, my child was very abrupt. So this process that I've gone through is tough. And as hard as it was, and as challenging as it was for me, I thought you'd done the worst already.

LB: Yeah, and I think that theme is what came up throughout the last series, every conversation we had with campaigning family members, we heard about this drive, to just push forward and get to the truth and fight for justice. But it's also important to acknowledge that not every family wants to do that, it doesn't work for everyone. For some people, they actually can put energy into this and that's going to help them move forward at whatever the cost. And for other people, they find space to process in different ways.

LL: I totally understand why some families may not want to go through that process. Even as somebody that has gone through the process and has got that outcome, I still know it's not for everyone. And I still have empathy for people that don't want to go throu gh that process, because of what's at risk. And knowing that you may not even get the result that you want at the end of it.

LB: Yeah.

LL: And even within my own family, not everybody felt the same way about pushing forward. And it's only when I understood how my siblings were affected by what we've gone through why they may have a different response to what happens or why they may not want to push forward because it does bring up the trauma again, it does bring up the pain, and all those other feelings surrounding that.

LB: So you go through this process, then at the end, there's only a limited amount of things that can happen. So the coroner and the jury come to a conclusion on what happened in terms of the death, they essentially have to fill in a short form. And then sometimes there's a narrative conclusion, which goes into a bit more detail about what happened, but they're limited in what they can conclude. It can be something like ‘unlawful killing ’ the name of our podcast, or ‘ neglect ’, ‘misadventure ’, which is an accidental death, or in relevant cases, ‘ suicide ’. Those are the kinds of conclusions an inquest can come to it. And sometimes they'll go into a bit more detail. What was the conclusion in your mom's inquest?

LL: My mum died as a result of the shooting, which took place in 95. The other part was it was in what circumstances and that there was this conclusion of multiple serious failings by the Metropolitan Police and the planning and implementation of the raid on our home and conclude that should never have happened in the first place. Right. So that was important to hear, as in the grand scheme of it, you know, life has been lost. So you want more in terms of justice?

MUSIC

LB: So, thinking back to series one, we heard about the horrific deaths of Blair Peach, Jake Foxall, Joseph Schol es, Liridon Saliuka, Mikey Powe ll, Jess Durdy and Matthew Lee, and the devastating impact that their deaths continue to have on their families and communities, all of whom have been through an inquest.

LL: And in none of these cases, was there an unlawful killing conclusion

LB: Yeah, from what we heard through the last series, there was so much evidence of injustice from doing things that the families felt deeply concerned about that you would question whether or not they're lawful and you definitely question whether or not they' re acceptable in our society. But the inquest conclusions ranged from neglect to misadventure accidental death, suicide. Unlawful killing wasn't the outcome but it doesn't mean that those inquest didn't highlight issues, just as in your mum's case that contributed to those people's deaths.

LL: Which leads us on to the reason why we named this podcast ‘Unlawful Killing’.

LB: Yeah, and that name has not been without its challenges. Maybe one day we'll be able to discuss in a lot more detail. But when we have conversations with so many families, you know what you want to get out of the inquest process as you've touched on his truth answers, but also some sort of acknowledgement of what went wrong. And that is often what happens. But for every family, there is often a strong feeling of injustice, and that their loved one was killed by the state by the systems. So whether or not formally in the courtroom, these cases meet the legal standards for an unlawful killing conclusion at an inquest, we know socially and publicly very often, we have to ask ourselves the questions. The way in which these people died, how can that be lawful?

LL: For me personally, when I speak about what happened to mum, I always say she was unlawfully shot by the Metropolitan Police. And I know that's how many families feel. And it's like, how can it be lawful when you look at the circumstances in which these people dying. And so therefore, this whole podcast designed to walk people through that journey of how difficult it really is, for families who are fighting for their loved ones.

LB: Suddenly, just bringing it back? We've mentioned your mum and her experiences so many times, but we actually haven't heard you speak about her and who she was as a person. So I was wondering if you could bring this all together for us by speaking about who was cherry gross.

LL: I remember at the inquest saying that she's been known as this woman who was shot by the police back in 19 85, which sparked the Brixton uprising. But she was much more than that, to us as a family. She was my personal hero. And before the incident, my mom was really outgoing, loved life, love, music, love to socialise. And she was always that person that people went to with their problems. She had a lot of wisdom. And she was a person who didn't like to repeat herself. So she told you something and you didn't get it the first time, she would say I'm not a parrot, some one that repeat myself. So it then meant that you paid attention to what she said, because you knew you're not gonna get a second chance.

LB: What was the best piece of advice that she ever gave you?

LL: She said, right, that you shouldn't fall in love, you must stand up in love. It was her way of saying to me, I suppose you know, always keep your head. In any situation, don't lose yourself. And what else would I say this is my favourite saying was that nothing happens before the time. And I realized that through the case, that it took my mom's death for the truth to come out about what happened to her. But I understood what she meant when nothing happens before his time.

LB: That feels so relevant, but also I feel like the first thing you said stand up in love. That's what you've done for your mum. That feels very poignant.

LB: In the next episode, we'll be delving back into our archive and looking at the lengths the state goes to defend itself, and how families are left fighting for the truth.

MUSIC

Credits

LB: We know that this is a really difficult episode. If you've been affected by any of the themes that have come up, please go to the links in the Episode Notes.

Did you like this podcast? Visit our website to donate so we can continue to shine a light on state violence, death and resistance. If you think other people would like Unlawful Killing then please rate and review us wherever you get your podcasts, ratings and feedback really help others discover the show.

If you have a story to share, get in touch via communications@inquest.org.uk or on social media @INQUEST.

We'd like to pay tribute to the thousands of bereaved families who have worked alongside INQUEST. Thank you to each and every one of you who have created powerful legacies for your loved ones and contributed to important changes which protect all of us. Unlawful Killing is a podcast by INQUEST presented by me Lucy Brisbane and Lee Lawrence, produced by Leila Hagman and Naomi Oppenheim, thanks to Aunt Nell Productions for their continued support this podcast is part funded by the National Lottery Heritage Fund. The music in this podcast is by Dave Okumu. We are grateful that this podcast series is supported by Hodge Jones and Allen a key law firm in the fight for what's right. Their lawyers help people right wrongs, fight injustice and defend people's rights. INQUEST have worked with Hodge Jones & Allen on countless cases from the Marchioness disaster of 1989 to the ongoing Essex Mental Health Inquiry. And finally, I want to say a special thank you to Lee for sharing his story in this episode.

Unlawful Killing

Series 2 | Episode 2: Truth 

Investigating deaths at the hands of the state: What's changed since the 1980s?

Release Date: 7 June 2024

Season: 2

Episode: 2

Presenters: Lee Lawrence and Lucy Brisbane

Guests / Oral History interviewees featured: Terry Munyard, Navind Raghoo, Nik
Wood

Producers: Leila Hagmann and Naomi Oppenheim

Music: Dave Okumu

Content warning: Police violence and death

Episode length: 31:44

Transcript

LB: Before we start, this episode contains stories of police violence and death. Please listen with care

MUSIC

LL: You're listening to unlawful killing, death resistance and the fight for justice.

LB: A podcast by inquest, the only charity fighting alongside families bereaved by deaths involving the state, including police, prison and Mental Health Services.

LL: I'm Lea Lawrence advocate and son of Cherry Groce, who was shot in Brixton, in that in a 1985 by the Metropolitan Police,

LB: And I'm Lucy Brisbane from INQUEST. In this series, we're diving into our history of campaigning, we'll be doing this through conversations with those at the centre of these stories.

LL: Series Two, episode two, truth. Part Two,

LB: The important thing about truth because we've touched a lot on why families want to get to the truth. But actually, the truth protects us all across all these public services that we all will engage with, from police, to mental health institutions, to social services, any kind of public service any one of us could be impacted and if these processes actually do what they're supposed to set out to do, our lives can be better protected in the future. Last episode, Lee spoke about his experience of going through an inquest after his mum died.

LL: In this episode, we're delving back into our archives and looking at the lengths that the state goes to, to defend itself and how families are left fighting for the truth.

LB: It's important to acknowledge that there are lots of different types of inquests any unexpected death can lead to an inquest process. But when somebody dies in custody, or detention, or where the state was involved in some way in the death, there's a different type of inquest that could last a few days, or it could last a few weeks, or even months. There’re all different types of inquest that go on and as well as there have been different types now, over the years inquests have really changed in how they're run here, who contributes to an inquest, and what you can expect to get out of them.

LL: So, Lucy question. What would have happened if my mum had died? Back in 1985, when she was shot? What would the inquest process look like? And how different would that be to the type of inquest that we had back in 2014?

LB: Well, let's hear from one of INQUEST’s founding members, the lawyer Terry Munyard, who worked on inquests from the late 1970s. and on into the 80s, when your mum was shot,

TM: There was a very strong sense of anger everybody there felt that we had to do something we couldn't let go of these issues they had to be fought, the police had to be fought and the public needed to know the truth about what was going on and in particular, the abysmal state of the coroner's system where we didn't get disclosure of the other side's papers, we would turn up at an inquest, within half an inch worth of papers. If we were lucky, we wouldn't get the postmortem report until very close to the i nquest here and then the home office would turn up with a team of young men carrying large boxes of papers, only a few of which the coroner would let us see in the course of the inquest, the murderous system in which police officers in particular were getting away with killing people and then the so -called accountability arm of the state, which was the Coroner's Court was abysmally deficient in failing the families completely. And so we were determined to do something.

LB: Terry was part of setting inquest organisation up in 1981. And in the years that followed, lots of different changes have taken place to the law. To the process that have changed the way the inquests are, there was the Human Rights Act, which came into force in 2000, where Article Two, which is the right to life, really changed how we see the inquests that happen today because the Right to Life also has this duty within it an investigative duty where the state is obliged to investigate where things might have gone wrong and how they may have contributed to a death. So the inquest process is part of meeting the state's duty under Article Two to run those investigations in England and Wales. We have jury inquests now, so there was always the potential of having a jury and inquest, but they were rarely seen.

But since the Human Rights Act came into force, juries are required in most deaths in custody. We also have legal aid, which I mentioned now for more and more families and other kinds of improvements that have been made along the way. So, for your mum's inquest, if it happened back then, when Terry is talking about, you wouldn't have had that disclosure of the evidence, you probably wouldn't have had a jury. Lots of things wouldn't have been in place to support your family to take part in the inquest, you definitely wouldn't have had the laid, it would have looked very different.

LL: Well hearing all of that Lucy has made me realise that even though with the process that we went through, we felt it was unfair, unbalanced. It's just dawned on me how really unfair things were before and that the likelihood of us getting the outcome that we did in our process would have been zero if it happened when my mum was shot back in 1985. Which brings me to my next question, then, who's responsible for those changes?

LB: There's been so much progress in the systems that we're seeing today and how they've changed in terms of families being supported through those processes, and improvements in access to justice, access to information to truth, which is obviously what we're talking about today. But we also have to acknowledge that still, in quests are failing families a lot of the time and people are not always getting what they want out of them. But where there have been improvements, that has been off the back of decades of bereaved people campaigning alongside organisations like INQUEST, other activist organisations, lawyers and human rights lawyers like Terry, who were also campaigners who were fighting with families and supporting them in asking for what they needed. And that has led to so much progress and such a different process today. So your mum's inquest was in 2014, we are 10 years on. So what happened for your family would have been again, very different today and there are other improvements that have come into place, like pen portraits, where more of the person can be brought into the process where we speak about who they were, sometimes pictures are shown to the jury but at the same time, many families are still not getting to what they need.

LL: And I would just want to take this moment to thank those people who have been campaigning, who didn't just accept things for how they were, and have created those changes within the system because I don't think myself and my family would have got the result that we got in 2014 If it wasn't for their efforts, so I just want to take that opportunity to say thank you.

LB: Absolutely that's so important it's also important to reflect a kind of, I would say more normal experience for many families, which is that often, you know, some families have really strong results of the inquest that answer their questions, they come to clear conclusions critical of the organi sations involved in the death but more often, there's kind of a middle ground where you access some of the truth. So we want to hear from a family who had an experience a bit like that. We're going to hear a clip from the Navind Raghoo his sister Natasha died at the Dean, a mental health unit in West Sussex in 2012.

NR: It was held in a town hall, but it was a room. Like just a nondescript room and I remember the paramedic witness when he came he was like, this looks very, very in formal. He's like, and, you know, the corner ’s officer said you know, th ese inquest things are informa lthey are not formal and my friend that came with the first days he goes are sure this is like, this doesn’ t feel like in quest, you know there's a room just a room, you know, chairs down the side for the jury chairs at the back. It could have been a school assembly. You know, it was that but what was horrible was that say, so it was me, my mum, Natalie, my dad and two of my friends, Richard and Tammy. So we were like five of us and then our legal representation. If you look to the left of us, it was like, the though the whole of The Dean was at this place. It was like the rest of the chairs, like all of these staff. So even witnesses that were going to be called, five days later, they were there you know, so they were just all there. The police C ID was set with them as well. All seem very comfortable. I was just like, oh my god what is this?

LL: Feels familiar

LB: Yeah

LL: It brought me right back to being at the inquest. And especially some of those early days, preliminary hearings, where it was a lot more informal. It's like we were just in a room. So there's an element of not feeling like it's been taken seriously enough. But on the flip side, the seriousness of having all of these people, it felt like all of these people were together, it's them against you.

LL: It's funny, because I've been to many inquests in my time working for the organisation. And they all look very different. Sometimes you turn up and you're in this historic kind of grand courtroom, where the coroner is sat on this podium at the top. And it feels very official and kind of in an old fashioned way, very formal. And then other times, it's just like, what Nav ind was saying, you rock up at a town hall, in a building that has so many different things happening, you get in the queue to go into the inquest, someone in front of you is asking about their Jobseeker's Allowance, and you're waiting for them before you get brought upstairs to this back room. Someone sat at the back. That's the coroner, the jury are just sitting on seats. And it does look very informal. And it feels very kind of thrown together. And it just depends where you are. And also this image of all these professionals who do this sort of stuff every day, who are very comfortable in these rooms and these spaces, they know what's going to happen. They know what to expect, they are all around you. Where you're in this moment, as a family, this very, potentially very emotional moment, I'm thinking last week, I was at an inquest, and the mum was there and she was holding her child who died, she was holding their cuddly toy and sat there and just in her casual clothes that she wou ld wear every day and then she sat next to all these people in suits and the visual contrast of that a mum and a toy, in a room with all these professionals and she's there saying how she was failed. It just is so obvious when you're sat there. This imbalance of power but also who has been failed here.

LL: So, by the time we had the formal inquest hearing, it felt very formal, because we was in a room that felt like a courtroom and the coroner felt like a judge and you had the jury sit in, you know, where they sit. So you felt as you walked into the room. That, okay, is serious number one and to some degree as well, it could feel a bit intimidating to be in that type of space, knowing that you're up against essentially the system.

LB: Yeah, I think that's really important, because you want it to be clear and acknowledge that this thing that's happening is important, and that everyone's taking it seriously, then in another sense, you're coming in as a bereaved family, this is probably on e of the worst things to have ever happened to you, as a family, the death of your loved one in these circumstances. It's deeply emotional and it's really scary to walk into these rooms where all these people around you, that's just their job to be the re.

LL: I would say you're very much the novice in the space. So you mentioned earlier about all these different professionals, this is what they do day in, day out. But you're coming in as a novice to what's going on. There's still the emotional stuff attached to it and it doesn't feel that there's that kind of duty of care towards you towards the family around going through such an intimidating and difficult and testing process.

LB: And we've touched on kind of the imbalance as well of there's you as a family and all these other masses of professionals in the room and in many cases, those could be professionals from a number of different interlocking state systems and Navind spoke about police being their mental health services being there. In many cases you might also have the local social services, multiple police forces I know you had at your inquest private providers like the Priory or mental health providers, they're all kind of talking to each other communicating with each other. In many cases, their lawyers are kind of in cahoots or representing similar points of view and then you're there just as a family on your own.

And anecdotally, many of our families report this kind of really difficult and awful experience of being in these relatively small rooms very often sat at seats next to the people who potentially caused or contributed to the death of your loved one and professionals who are all together, maybe all with their mates. We've heard stories of people having witnesses like police officers and mental health professionals laughing at the back of court, high-fiving. Like the levels of disrespect that families have reported over the years of people turning up at these inquests where they're basically just at work. But for you, this is a really significant moment in your life and a really significant moment in the processes that follow a bereavement. But that's not what it feels like for the professionals very often.

LL: I think there's this disconnect, because for the professionals, they're protecting reputation where families are fighting for the loved ones who've died at the hands of the state. And just as you were saying, that just reminded me of at the inquest when I walked in, and just saw this man sitting there, just before I was going into the Coroner's Court, and then reali sing that that was the man who shot my mum and to think there was no thought process around that to say, how do we do this sensitively? That th is is the man who shot his mum, that isn't seen since he was 11. What could that bring up for you? Nothing was taken into consideration. It was just business as usual. So we've spoken in depth about the kind of general process of an inquest, we spoke about all the sort of legal teams and professionals who are there, and how intimidating that can be to be in that type of environment. But let's speak a little bit more about the coroner and the coroner's role within an inquest.

LB: A helpful way to explore that question is going back to our archives. Let's hear from Nik Wood, who started volunteering for INQEUST after he heard his neighbour get shot. On the 22nd of September 1999, Harry Stanley was on his way home from the pub in East London. He was carrying a table like that was mistaken for a shotgun.

NW: We had this gift of a barrister from the Police Federation. He was arrogant, sneering, supercilious and he stood up and simply because he was wearing a suit cost more than these guys at the back would have spent on clothes in a year. He put their backup then in there. And every time he opened his mouth, he lost more of the jury. You could see two people at the front whenever he stood up, they eventually put their notebooks down and folded their arms and the body language was wonderful. If it had only been him, I think we would have won it. But unfortunately, the coroner says to a jury, you may bring in this, this, this or this of the potential verdicts as they were called then findings as they were now, and he wouldn't allow unlawful killing.

And therefore, what happened was that the jury brought in an open verdict. It was that and the other thing was that the coroner had allowed Harry Stanley's record to be put before in front of the jury. And the thing was that nobody involved in or in of the police that were involved that night. Neither the firearms officers nor the sergeant that was keeping tabs on it and all the 999 -call handler knew who he was. So therefore, his long and inglorious criminal career was not part of their decision-making process. So, it was for those two reasons, but that inquest verdict was successfully overturned.

LB: Initially, Harry Stanley's death was recorded with an open verdict and the inquest before being ruled as unlawful killing by a jury on appeal, and then finally returned to an open verdict by the High Court. So, there was a lot of argument and debate and back and forth in different courtrooms about how this death should be perceived. And what the conclusions of the inquest should be. What Nik's telling of the inquest into the death of Harry Stanley bring up is the role of a coroner. And how much power they have over deciding the scope of an inquest. So, what evidence can be heard?

So we heard in Nik’s example, that the coroner allowed the jury to hear what Harry Stanley's criminal record was, even though when he was shot, none of the people who shot him knew anything about him. So how is that relevant? We also heard about the jury being limited in what conclusions they can come to so the coroner decides which conclusions there's a legal standard of evidence for before the jury can then decide what they think.

LL: Is that what we call a scope?

LB: Yeah, the scope at the inquest has decided those preliminary hearings or the pre-inquest reviews that you spoke about, which are a bitless formal and then once you have the scope, then you have the final hearing. It is unusual in Harry's case, to have so much back and forth with the conclusion. But what that tells us about how much police or public services, are fighting to prevent those unlawful killing conclusions, or those critical conclusions, and the lengths that they will go to,

LL: To try and overturn them where they are criticised. So just touching on that, no, I think it's important to highlight that, that is a very familiar tactic that's used to sort of demonise the victim, or anyone associated to the victim in order to kind of create this small effect. As far as I'm concerned, we've seen that in so many cases where something happens, and then all of a sudden, it becomes about this person's background and their history, and so on and so forth, which had nothing to do with why someone decided to do what they did to that person. In that moment.

And again, with what happened to my mum, my brother had a colourful record, in terms of things that he got up to in his past and I thought when she was shocked back in 1985, a lot of the media coverage would highlight my brother's criminal record, some of the things that you may have been gearing up to, and so on and so forth, almost try and justify, you know, the, why my mum was shot by the police, which had nothing to do with her. He wasn't there. He didn't live with us. So I don't know how to justify shooting her that day. But it just sounds so familiar. You know that time and time again, this is a tactic that is used to try and sway the jury.

LB: Yeah, and I think we focus a lot on police and police related deaths. But that's also really relevant when it comes to other types of cases. So even suicides or deaths from neglect, of people who weren't cared for in different types of institutions. Very often, the state lawyers will try and find a way to blame that person for their own death, or to blame the families for the ways in which they may have failed the person rather than as the inquest is intended to be going through this fact finding process to get to the truth, to identify changes that need to happen to prevent future deaths. So the intention of the inquest is very often lost in the ways in which the state will fight to cover its own back and not be criticised, when in fact, all families want, and all the public really want the public interest is for an inquest to identify did anything go wrong? And is there an ongoing risk to other people's lives? How can we stop this from happening again?

LL: And I think that part that you just mentioned, is so important. Because I think sometimes when we think about inquest, it seems quite isolated to the individual and their families and so on, so forth. But if an inquest finds that there were failures in how something was done, and then things change as a result of that, potentially, we've saved somebody else's life and that's why I think that's sort of why the public interest is so important that people know about these things, understand it, and that we all should be advocating for these processes to be fair.

LB: Yeah, and that's the important thing about truth because we've touched a lot on why families want to get to the truth. But actually, the truth protects us all, across all these public services that we all will engage with, from police to mental health ins titutions, to social services, any kind of public service any one of us could be impacted, and if these processes actually do what they're supposed to set out to do, our lives can be better protected in the future.

LL: So that brings us back to Terry, who reflects on over 40 years of doing this work.

TM: Ironically, 40 years later, the system has changed quite a lot, but the deaths are continuing and you get a much better opportunity to question what's gone on and reveal what's going on. But you still don't get police officers being prosecuted, or if they're on the very rare occasion when they are prosecuted, being convicted of homicide, whether it be murder or manslaughter. So the supreme irony is we've achieved a great deal and we are absolutely vital as a support for the families who are fighting the system. But the system is still killing probably as many people as it did before and getting away with it in most cases.

LB: I think the irony that Terry highlights is a hard one to hear, because we know that there's such positive changes and really, we know that now inquest processes are much better at identifying what went wrong. But what's difficult is, the system is so stacked against us that even when we know what's going wrong, even when we can access those facts on what needs to change the systems criminal justice, healthcare, are still not taking that seriously, and inputting the changes that we need to see. So there's much more work to be done and that fight for justice is something that we're going to be speaking about in the next episodes.

LL: So I think Terry speaks to the harsh reality of where we're at that, with the progress that has been made, you know, in our case was an example of how those changes or small changes have made a difference to us. My mum was shot by the police almost forty years ago, next year it will forty years.

And although it took us 29 years to get an outcome and that outcome was to acknowledge the multiple serious failings by the Met, which led to an apology and some accountability. To know that people are still being shot and killed by the police today makes us realise that there is still so much more work to be done and we haven't done nowhere near enough to stop these things from happening. So as sad as it is, I think we owe it to all the lives that have been sacrificed to bring about the type of change that we need to see.

LB: In the next episode, we'll be hearing from more families about what justice means to them.

SR: I don't think we can have justice for Connor when there's injustices that keep going around everybody else, all these other people are dying.

MUSIC

Credits

LB: We know that this is a really difficult episode. If you've been affected by any of the themes that have come up, please go to the links in the Episode Notes.

Did you like this podcast? Visit our website to donate so we can continue to shine a light on state violence, death and resistance. If you think other people would like Unlawful Killing then please rate and review us wherever you get your podcasts, ratings and feedback really help others discover the show.

If you have a story to share, get in touch via communications@inquest.org.uk or on social media @INQUEST.

We'd like to pay tribute to the thousands of bereaved families who have worked alongside INQUEST. Thank you to each and every one of you who have created powerful legacies for your loved ones and contributed to important changes which protect all of us.

Unlawful Killing is a podcast by INQUEST presented by me Lucy Brisbane and Lee Lawrence, produced by Leila Hagman and Naomi Oppenheim, thanks to Aunt Nell Productions for their continued support this podcast is part-funded by the National Lottery Heritage Fund. The music in this podcast is by Dave Okumu. We are grateful that this podcast series is supported by Hodge Jones and Allen a key law firm in the fight for what's right. Their lawyers help people right wrongs, fight injustice and defend people's rights. INQUEST have worked with Hodge Jones & Allen on countless cases from the Marchioness disaster of 1989 to the ongoing Essex Mental Health Inquiry.

And finally, I want to say a special thank you to Terry Munyard, Navind Raghoo. Nik Wood, Alfie meadows and Moira Durdy for taking part in our oral history project.

Unlawful Killing

Series 2 | Episode 3: Justice 

Sara Ryan's journey to justice after the death of her son Connor Sparrowhawk

Release Date: 7 June 2024

Season: 2

Episode: 3

Presenters: Lee Lawrence and Lucy Brisbane

Guests / Oral History interviewees featured: Sara Ryan

Producers: Leila Hagmann and Naomi Oppenheim

Music: Dave Okumu

Content warning: Death, neglect and mistreatment of autistic people and people with learning disabilities

Episode length: 39:51

Transcript

LB: Before we start, this episode contains stories of death, neglect and mistreatment of autistic people and people with learning disabilities. Please be mindful when you choose to listen.

MUSIC

LL: You're listening to Unlawful Killing, death resistance and the fight for justice.

LB: A podcast by Inquest, the only charity fighting alongside families bereaved by deaths involving the state, including police, prison and Mental Health Services.

LL: I'm Lee Lawrence advocate and son of Cherry Groce, who was shot in Brixton in that in 85, by the Metropolitan Police,

LB: and I'm Lucy Brisbane from Inquest in this series, we're diving into our history of campaigning. We'll be doing this through conversations with those at the centre of these stories.

LL: Episode three: Justice, part one

SR: I don't think we can have justice for Connor when there's injustices that keep going around everybody else, all these other people are dying.

LB: Last episode we looked at the lengths the state goes to, to defend itself and how families are left searching for the truth. But does that truth mean that families actually get justice?

LL: We spoke to Sara Ryan, whose son Connor Sparrowhawk died NHS Care Unit about her family's long fight for justice within and beyond the law.

SR: My name is Sara Ryan, and I'm a professor of social care at Manchester University. And I'm also Connor’s mum Connor sparrowhawk and the mum to Rosie, Will, Owen and Tom our beautiful children.

LB: Sara, you've been campaigning for justice and change since 2013 When your son Connor sparrowhawk died from neglect by a Care Unit run by Southern health NHS Foundation Trust when he was just 18 years old. So much happened in Connors life before all this and in your family's life since Could you explain briefly what happened to Connor?

SR: Connor was a happy young man part of a big family. And then when he turned 18, he became uncharacteristically anxious and distressed to the point at which we really needed some help. And that help in inverted commas came in the form of finding out about an NHS Trust unit, about a mile and a half two miles down the road to us, where he was admitted in March 2013. As a voluntary patient that night he was sectioned after attacking a support worker. And you remained in that unit with no assessment and treatment, which was the name of the unit for 107 days and then drowned in the bath. One morning when he was getting ready to go to the Oxford bus company And the staff were doing Tesco’s order in the office next door.

LL: How did that make you feel?

SR: I still can't believe it. Just that bit of what happened though, I cannot believe I can't believe in an NHS unit with five patients a staff team of 20 professionals, fo ur members of staff on duty 24 hours a day they let a young man who had epilepsy was having seizures in the unit bath on his own and just sit there ordering. Shit basically.

LL: I saw a little bit of your video where you went there and he had his tongue. And you explain that he had a seizure from what you know and that they didn't take that on board. What do you think the difference could have made if they had heard you and listen to what you had to say about your son and what you knew about your son?

SR: Well, I wouldn't be sitting here now. I'd be sitting at home probably back in Oxford, with Connor somewhere living happily hopefully it was such a most basic error not if it's not even an error because to call it in error to dignify it with some sort of explanation. He would be alive its not rocket science. It's the most basic of healthcare. When I saw it, I told the staff on duty, I went home, I rang the staff in the evening to make sure the evening staff knew. I emailed this to the unit manager. I couldn't have done more to say, This is what's happened because he was on his own in the unit in his room. And that makes me feel sick to have a seizure without anybody there And they just decided, because of uppity-ness to say, no, he wasn't having any seizures.

LB: And see when before Connor died, you already had a blog, and you were writing about your experiences as a mum, caring for Connor. Everything that was kind of going on in your life called My daft life. And then after Connor died, you kind of continued that writing and speaking out and garnered a continuing campaign in the 10-plus years since so in this episode, we're kind of exploring justice and I know you had the Justice for LB or Justice for Laughing Boy campaign. Can you tell us about what your justice campaign was all about? And what were the key moments in that campaign?

SR: That is a big question. Well, it's funny, it's a funny one, because if I hadn't written the blog, then Caoilfhionn Gallagher wouldn't have got in touch. Caoilfhionn is a KC barrister now, but she was following the blog. So she messaged me on the day Connor died because I put a one liner on the blog to alert us to the fact that there may be a cover up. If I hadn't written the blog that the NHS trusted found, or come across about a month or so before Connor died, then perhaps wouldn't have been so much defensiveness around Connors care, even though it's anonymized, they felt it was being derogatory about medical professionals, that sort of li ke in a way generated a problem. But then it helped us realize and recognize that we had to be a bit more alert to what was going to happen, and then maybe attempts by the trust, to not investigate properly. And then at the same time, there was a lot of followers of the blog, who had really sort of taken to Connor and his quirkiness, so they were totally horrified at this diari sing almost of what was happening. And so that led to people stepping up to sort of help in whatever way they could.

And then somebody called George Julian got in touch who I hadn't met, either. We were following each other on Twitter. And she turns out to have the most phenomenal campaigning skills about how to sort of manage social media. And so we started the campaign, just the two of us, no resources, nothing. She had knowledge, I was just there ready to do the research and read and the stuff I do at work. And we had two rules for our campaign, the contributions people made, which were financial, fundraising, or rai sing awareness, were not to be negative about people with learning disabilities, not to dwell on the negative stuff around people being treated appallingly. We generated a campaign that was full of joy, creativity, laughter, a lot of magic. And people felt safe and comfortable enough to do anything. So, we ran a campaign called 107 days at the following year after Connors death to mark the 107 days he spent in the unit. And we said to people just adopted the day and do something along those lines. George and I thought we'd be rehashing old blog posts. By the end of the 107 days, we had two or three people trying to adopt days. And this spread to Canada to France to New Zealand, to Australia. They were brownies in New Zealand, drawing buses in chalk or one of their sessions, two villages in Yorkshire got together and had cups of tea and shared stories. Children were doing cakes sa les, we sold postcards of Connors artwork for £1 each.

There was academics giving lectures, people composing songs, self-advocacy groups, recording dance music, there was so many things that were done. It was just an extravaganza of that time and everyday. It was just such a wonderful experience every day because George had a massive spreadsheet, and we could see what was coming the next day and it was just like, wow, that is amazing. And then my PhD supervisor, she decided to ask people to send them patches to make a Justice for LB quilt. And that is a piece of extraordinary magic is literally takes your breath away. So there's this massive quilt that's been all over the country on display. So that's very cool. And it's full of London buses, which is what Connor loved.

LL: So what was that like having so many people connect with the campaign and what do you think it was that people connected to?

SR: I mean, I think that saved me as it were. Because I think when something like this happens, it is so indescribably awful, that it can be quite difficult to keep going and I think the campaign was just such a lift. And it was just so joyful and to see that so many people cared. In contrast to the care Connor never got from the healthcare professionals, that was wonderful. And I think they connected to Connor, I just think that there was just a young lad there who loves London buses was very funny, had a very unusual take on life, and was just sort of like living his life in a way that shouldn't have bothered anybody and yet, it ended because people couldn't be bothered about him.

LL: I think that’s quite profound when you say that he died because of the lack of care. But through the campaign, people showed so much care towards what, what happened and connecting to Connor himself as well. It's amazing what you managed to achieve through that, you know, I can really relate and connect what you just said around the campaign, because when we were campaigning for legal aid, it was the most daunting thing ever to go public. I didn't know how people were going to respond. I didn't know how people were going to view us I didn't, you know I was really worried about making sure that I represent my mum in the best way. But, you know, in the end, though, was over onto the 130, 000 people who signed that petition and it was just so heartwarming to know that there was all these other people out there who cared, and who were supporting you to have a fair hearing.

SR: Yeah, I agree. I mean, it is so uncomfortable to put yourself out there. I don't think it's anything many people want to do is that when you're pushed into that space because of the inequalities that are just embedded in this process and so when you do that, and you feel uncomfortable, but on top of everything else you've been through, to have that response is priceless really.

LL: isn't it? It is. And I think people are really probably connecting to the realness and authenticity because in that moment, you're so stripped and exposed and vulnerable. And where that can be seen as the weakness I think when you're campaigning, I think that's really the strength of a campaign. Yeah, I agree.

LB: And I asked about in Connor ’s case initially, there was essentially a cover up in which Southern Health and the NHS Trust tried to say this is natural causes nothing to see here coroner don't worry about it. We're just gonna carry on. So how did you come to have the inquest and then the legal aid?

SR: We didn't have legal aid in the end because we fundraised outside of that. The reason we had an inquest because about two weeks after Connor died, the trust published in their public board meeting that a service user died of natural causes, which I found in the middle of the night, apparently, I couldn't remember who found this ex tract because it was like on page 284 of the most boring sort of sets of notes of a meeting you could ever imagine. And for the trust to say that Connor died of natural causes. An 18-year-old young man who got into a bath before going off to see a bus company is just extraordinary, shows her practice they are they're just used to doing this basically and then you have families who know nothing about inquests, nothing about any of the processes.

If Caoilfhionn hadn't got in touch with us that day, we would have been none the wiser, really. And there might not have been an inquest, because as it turned out Conner’s of inquest, we found out another man died in the same bath in the same unit seven years before, with the same staff present. And the death certificate said natural causes. people with learning disabilities are assumed to just die. They're seen as so sort of somehow flawed. So weak stocks sort of in inverted commas that if they die unexpectedly, because they get terrible care, everybody just says one natural causes. And so without that message and Caoilfhionn without getting in touch with INQUEST without INQUEST putting us in touch with Charlotte Howard Hurd, who is the most extraordinary solicitor, and then we ended up with Paul Bowen Casey on our team as well, none of this would have happened and so the trust tried to do their usual dirty tricks and the legal team sort of kept being there, sort of stopping it, and trying to sort of overcome each hurdle they threw up in front of us and then at the same time, we had this grand campaign, which was sort of unsettling the trust because it was very public. And so the trust tried to sort of make out like I was really difficult or an impossible person, then the family, the legal team, everybody who supported the campaign, George Julian, were there just fighting it with goodness, really, and with sort of joy and with integrity, and so it was quite an experience and so the more joy you had on one side, the more horrific the actions of the trust seemed. There's a play going on in London at the moment at Jermyn Street, Laughing Boy, directed by Stephen Unwin and that play captures the love, the family joy, and then the most ridiculous absurdities from the state that are wincing to watch.

LL: Sara what does justice look like for you? And do you believe that you've got justice for Connor?

SR: I don't think we can have justice for Connor when there's injustices that keep going around everybody else, all these other people are dying. So whilst in some respects we got justice, the trust was fine two million pounds in the end in a health and safety prosecution and the chief executive of the trust Katrin Percy eventually resigned eventually, there's a massive payoff. I still don't know what happened on that morning. We have no details of that morning other than somebody was doing an online order and then found Connor, what time did he wake up? What happened? Did he run his own bath? I can't imagine that. So we don't know that. But whether I need to know that for justice, I'm not sure. But I feel like we've done Connor proud, I think he would be chuffed to bits because he was very big on justice a bit of a justicef an that boy, the wider and injustices remain so bit were mixed on there.

LB: And you've continued to work with my life, my choice, and other amazing campaigners who are speaking more broadly about the injustices and inequality facing people with learning disabilities and autism. Can you tell us a bit about that, and the kind of ong oing issues and struggles?

SR: Yeah, it's a funny one, because my work in life is all about researching this area and then I've worked with my life, my choice of self-advocacy group and Oxford since 2007. They're an absolutely brilliant bunch got a lot of friends and I'm actually their patron, which makes me chuckle. And they stepped up to support the campaign from the very first hour, I think they were one of the first organizations that donated to the fundraising, which is remarkable and really shows you the integrity that underpins them. It was my life, my choice and another charity in Oxfordshire called Yellow Submarine. Both got together and said, Let's donate some money to this campaign and at Connors inquest, people from my life, my choice came every day and they did all the standing up, the bow in the heads are sitting down the whole lot and sat there through interminable language and jargon. It just doesn't make any sense to anybody and yet they were there every day. But my work in life, you do all this research, all these projects, and it doesn't seem to matter what we find out, and how much we know, that needs to change, there just seems to be quite an entrenched resistance to seeing people as people. And that really bothers me.

LB: I just wanted to ask, going back a little bit. So you had the inquest process. You had many other investigations going on? And then you mentioned the prosecution? Can you tell us a bit about what kind of came out of those processes

SR: We had a police investigation that went nowhere in the end, after a lot of effort by the police office, but funnily enough, they just send so many documents that this one guy just got swamped, really with box files and box files of information that's impossible to work through. So, then Norman Lamb stepped in and said, well, there should be a health and safety prosecution and so they health and safety suddenly woke up and decided to investigate. And then they were very slow. So, Norman Lamb stepped in again and said to them get a move on so there was this criminal prosecution. When we found out that the trustor said Connors death was natural causes so glibly, we thought, how many other people have died like this and so we tweeted, the Chief Exec of NHS England, who was David Nicholson at the time and he said, come on, meet me and so we went to meet him and said, would you commission an investigation into all the deaths in the trust of people learning disabilities, because it just seems really in congress that you would just say, som ebody's alive, the re, now they're dead, but it's fine doesn't make any sense at all. So he did, and eventually, an organization called Mazars did this investigation in which they found out and it still, when I first found this out on a bus, going home from work, and I just couldn't stop crying on the bus. The investigation found out that in the five -year period and looked at the unexpected deaths of people learning disabilities, 327 people died, and then investigatedt wo Connor and a young man called Edward Hartley and this was so inflammatory that the report wasn't published. So, they kept sort of, oh, we need to review the review because there must be something wrong here. So they sent it off to be reviewed, sudden health got it reviewed and of course, there wasn't anything wrong with it. They've done their review they're an international consultancy they knew what they were doing. And then in the end, it was leaked to Michael Buchanan, a t BBC I think he was leaked a few copies I think he probably got copies flying into his inbox left right and centre. And on the On December, the 15th. Jeremy Hunt was called to the House of Commons to answer an urgent question about this report and that if you look at Hansard for that discussion, everybody crossed as party condemnation in a civilized sort of so-called advanced society within a National Health Service, how can we have all these people dying without anybody investigating? And so, Jeremy Hunt said, a load of blah, blah, blah, and didn't really answer and then they managed to sort of like lose the focus on people with learning disabilities in the ongoing work and just make it about people dying in the NHS, what can we improve? So again, it was a moment and then it bombed.

LB: I think, is really important point about investigations because in the podcast, we speak to people where their loved ones have died in police custody and in prisons and in both cases, there are automatic independent investigations by independent bodies, the prisons, and probation ombudsman, the independent office for police conduct, and those are people who are detained. But for people with learning disabilities and autism who are detained, and also for mental health patients who are detained. There is no automatic independent investigation and there's no independent body that consistently investigates those deaths still, to this day. That's something that I don't think a lot of people would know about or realize and it's always quite shocking to people, when you say, if you die in these types of detention, there's independent investigation. But if you die in care settings, there's just not.

SR: Yeah, like, so many people have got in touch to sort of say, oh, my sister died of a broken neck or this happened or that, and no investigation? No, they didn't realize, and it didn't realize that there should be an independent investigation that the NHS is seen as such a sort of force for good, which is most of the time, but for some reason, people think if you're an NHS patient, then all processes will be followed and then that's not the case.

LB: Maybe that's also why the campaign that you've run and the way that you've worked together with all these different people to bring these issues to light, often in more creative and more joyful ways, is in such contrast to how the system responds and has had such an impact, and also engage so many people.

SR: It's interesting. because, I think, maybe not in contrast to the other state bodies you talked about. But the issue around people with learning disabilities is you're already badged as somehow inferior; your life options and imaginations are severely limited. And so it's very difficult to break out of those limitations to actually see a person almost needed that unruly, joyful campaign to be able to help people to see that it's all about the human and the love and family.

LL: There was a kind of theme that we picked up on it certainly in my case with my mum, although she was kind of made disabled as a result of being shot, and being paralyzed, automatically, I became a young carer, and I felt like as a carer, being privy to, you know, all the challenges that mum had, and had to go through, probably helped me to fight just that much harder for her. And there's a part of you that understands that this person couldn't have a voice for themselves. So it's important for me to be that vehicle to give her that voice. And we just be interested to hear from your side, how that works for you.

SR: That's so interesting, because I think most parents of disabled children in this country have had to have that fight from pretty much day one and so you've been forced to be a campaigner. From the moment your vote from the moment your child is, is labelled as being disabled or having a learning disability or autistic and so you've developed those skills beforehand, and you also develop this meticulous record keeping and this meticulous documenting of everything, which again, is useful after which is terrible, really,

LL: And that thing about all the stuff that happened before, it's almost like you're being prepared for something that you don't know is going to happen. When it does happen, you realize that, Oh, I know what needs to be done. I know what this person would want. And I know more importantly, what they deserve.

SR: Yeah, exactly and I think funnily enough the blog that this, the more I think about it, as more time goes, the blog is central to all of this and in fact, the blog because I was documenting things in real time, it was actually treated as evidence in the inquest, whereas, you know, there was argy -bargy about that and the legal teams tried to stop the bulk blog posts being used, because I would sit down and write them but on my I was just sort of making stuff up whereas the medical notes that we used, wer etreated as fact. No sort of like this argument or this was fact I was just writing it over time as it happened. Without knowing that it was going to become so important you end up equipped basically.

LB: So, I want to pick up on something I overheard you talking about briefly, which is Lee obviously is a campaigner and a son very often it's the mums who we see that you kind of at the forefront of campaigning but in your family you've had everyone's been invol ved in different voices have been involved in campaigning in your family. So can you tell us a bit about your whole family's journey as campaigners?

SR: Yeah, I mean, obviously, Connor was so loved. And we were just a big happy family, the trust or whoever tries to sort of put everything on mum, and it's quite easy to then try and discredit them. But in fact, Connors, sister and brothers are such a bunch of fun, really sort of like justice driven kids who are so personable, and so, so angry about what happened to their brother, that that's been quite difficult to quell for people who want this to go away and I think in the play that one of the strengths of the plan people have commented on this is that it just shows the siblings having such a good time being so loving, fighting, scrapping, hugging each other, crying together and I think that is a really precious strand to all of this as well. It's wrong to always make it about mum, and she's always mum, she never has a name, she's just mum and I think that's really crap.

LL: And I suppose is what everyone is affected in different ways. So, I think it's important to acknowledge, you know, that everyone's affected and everyone contributes as well in their own different way to o

LB: You two have in common is you've kept campaigning for a very long time, a lot of the time people say, oh, you know, like, you've been through the processes, it's kind of done, like wrap it up, move on. But what every family we've spoken to has in common, is this kind of consistent persistence, and energy to keep going in different ways over the years, but to keep campaigning, keep pushing for change, and keep caring and keep talking about their loved ones, what has kept you going, what's giving you the strength to continue?

SR: Think it is just such a strong sense of justice. And I'd like nothing more than to be able to pack my bag and go off and sit on a beach for a long while, I would love to just go off and do anything other than campaign, not something I ever set out to do. It's just something you get caught up in it so important. And sadly, the change just isn't happening. So at the same time, I would find it really difficult to go and sit on a beach forever. Knowing that this these injustices are happening, I actually feel pain, when I think about what people are enduring right now. All families who have just had this, this sort of thing happened to them, and you know, what lies ahead and how many years punishing years they're gonna have, I think if you have that strong sense of justice, it's very difficult not to.

LL: I agree. And I think, for me, it's almost like a duty of service. And it's quite purpose driven too. So, as you say, as long as these things continue to happen, there's almost an obligation to keep doing your bit to try and contribute towards ending it in some way. The great thing about him and connected with INQUEST was when you're able to speak to other families, hear stories, get tips about how people have dealt with things, even honouring a loved one, you know, understanding what different people do that for you. There's a play, you written a book, I'd written a book, I'm also in the process of getting something done on TV. So the ongoing thing to say, how do you make sure that number one, this is not forgotten, too, that lessons are learned. and that free, we can try and use our experience to try and prevent these things from continuing to happen to other people, you know, they say who feels it knows it.

SR: I never heard that before

LL: I just want to take this opportunity to acknowledge all the work that you've done, you and your family. I know how hard is how difficult it is, especially when you're grieving, to do the work, to have that person's voice heard and to get to some point of where there was some level of justice, and then to continue to do more, because it can be easy to say, well, that's that done my part. We've got to as far as we can, in this process, I'm going to get on with my life. But to know that you're still saying there's more to do because there's more people suffering out there. I really want to commend you for that and I know that it can be hard to receive it as well. When you're, you know, when you're just doing it because as far as you're concerned, it just needs to be done. But it is important to say that to you, and hopefully for you to receive that.

SR: Thank you.

LL: You're welcome

LB: And a final question. So you've mentioned a little bit about Connor what he was like as a person. Can you tell us a little bit more about who he was and one thing that you'd like everyone to know about him?

SR: He's a Smasher, he's just something else really. He's so unusual so funny and generous and so wise in his own way, he was a big character. And he's left a massive, massive space.

MUSIC

LB: In Connor's life, as well as after his death, Sara was an advocate

LL: Sara was a force to be reckoned with

LB: 100%. But she was also always fighting the stem, I don't think she did trust the NHS, I think she was forced to put her trust into them, or force to allow them to provide care because it was necessary. But actually, I think as many parents of people with learning disabilities or any disabilities who need something from the system's learn very quick, the system are not going to give you what you need without fighting for it. And she's continued that fight and not only has she continued it, but the community that very organically actually grew around her and her family. It was amazing to hear about that response, and also her understanding of justice, because for me listening, we know so many families that have been through these processes, and, you know, like, formally and officially, they had a really critical inquest, which they fought for. But it was extremely critical, in the end, there was a health and safety prosecution in which the trust was fined a record -breaking amount of money, they really weren't held accountable in that way. The system would say that's justice. But that isn't what Sara was saying. So maybe I want to put this back to you the has speaking to Sara changed how you think about justice?

LL: Good question and listening to Sara, even when we asked her the question around justice, and her saying that she may have got some level of justice for Connor. But in terms of the wider know, injustices that are happening, then no, there's still so much more to do and there is that thing around, you know, what's for the person, the person whose life has been lost, that you're fighting for? What is justice for them? And what is justice for you because what you find, especially with campaigners, the work continues beyond, it starts off very personal, something that's happened to you, you know, directly and directly to your loved one, but becomes this wider thing of, you know, there's other people out there, and this is happening too, and I feel empathetic towards those people. And I feel the need to, to do something more.

LB: There's also something hard about that little because there's something about families, bereaved families, end up almost feeling responsible for being the ones that are pushing for that change, and feel responsible for all the people who they know are suffering as their loved ones have. Actually, it's the systems that are responsible. And it's the systems that should be responsible for making those changes. But it feels like families carry such huge burdens on their shoulders after massive loss. And that's come up loads of every conversation we've had often, both on the mic and off the mic. Families say to us, oh, I need to stop. I'm tired, I need a break. But they're bearing the responsibility in a way that you wish the professionals would like if only every professional had the level of care and responsibility that families that have sat here and spoken to us feel the world would be a very different place.

LL: And I totally agree, families are carrying an unfair burden. That as you say, is not shouldn't be theirs. They take on because, you know, the people who should be on and that's probably where you get that, that that grit from, you know, people really dig deep because you have to dig deep, you know, to kind of go through these processes to fight for your loved one to campaign. You know, they've decided it's a decision that I'm going to take eat this on the I'm not going to allow my loved one to die in vain like this, I'm not gonna allow these people to get away with what they've done

LB: And is that justice? You know, maybe this is what Sar a was alluding to justice would be actually nobody being at risk of this ever.

LL: On a personal level, I just think that a serve justice as a thing that is subjective and justice is the journey if that is probably a place you're never going to get to in your lifetime, but you're on the road to justice. And there's moments where you can say along that road along that journey where you can say, Okay, we've achieved that milestone, we've managed to get that in place for managed to change this particular law or influence these people in this way. Whatever it is, they are significant things that I think we should acknowledge, and at times even go as far as to say, celebrate, but just understanding that the journey continues.

MUSIC

LB: In the next episode, we'll continue to explore what justice means and how we can build it. We'll be doing this with the help of Marcia Ri gg, campaigner and sister of Sean Rigg, who died in police custody in Brixton.

MR: And whilst there is no justice and family’ sreali se there is no justice. There's just us. We have to support ourselves. And so we offer that support. You know, you can turn on your grief into your campaign, throw it back at them. Don't take the grief that they've thrown at you. How dare they. Bestrong. Be strong together.

LB: We know that this is a really difficult episode. If you've been affected by any of the themes that have come up, please go to the links in the Episode Notes.

MUSIC

Credits

LB: We know that this is a really difficult episode. If you've been affected by any of the themes that have come up, please go to the links in the Episode Notes.

Did you like this podcast? Visit our website to donate so we can continue to shine a light on state violence, death and resistance. If you think other people would like Unlawful Killing then please rate and review us wherever you get your podcasts, ratings and feedback really help others discover the show.

If you have a story to share, get in touch via communications@inquest.org.uk or on social media @INQUEST.

We'd like to pay tribute to the thousands of bereaved families who have worked alongside INQUEST. Thank you to each and every one of you who have created powerful legacies for your loved ones and contributed to important changes which protect all of us.

Unlawful Killing is a podcast by INQUEST presented by me Lucy Brisbane and Lee Lawrence, produced by Leila Hagman and Naomi Oppenheim, thanks to Aunt Nell Productions for their continued support this podcast is part-funded by the National Lottery Heritage Fund. The music in this podcast is by Dave Okumu. We are grateful that this podcast series is supported by Hodge Jones and Allen a key law firm in the fight for what's right. Their lawyers help people right wrongs, fight injustice and defend people's rights. INQUEST have worked with Hodge Jones & Allen on countless cases from the Marchioness disaster of 1989 to the ongoing Essex Mental Health Inquiry.

We'd like to say a special thank you to Sara Ryan for sharing her story in this episode.

Unlawful Killing

Series 2 | Episode 4: Justice 

Marcia Rigg on why there is no justice, just us

Release Date: 9 July 2024

Season: 2

Episode: 4

Presenters: Lee Lawrence and Lucy Brisbane

Guests / Oral History interviewees featured: Sara Ryan

Producers: Leila Hagmann and Naomi Oppenheim

Music: Dave Okumu

Content warning: Racism, police violence, mental ill health, death and graphic descriptions

Episode length: 44:31

Transcript

LB: Before we start, this episode contains discussion of racism, police violence, mental ill health, death and graphic descriptions. Please be mindful when you choose to listen.

LL: You're listening to Unlawful Killing: death resistance and the fight for justice. A podcast by INQUEST, the only charity fighting alongside families bereaved by deaths involving the state, including police, prison and Mental Health Services. I'm Lee Lawrence advocate and son of Cherry Groce, who was shot in Brixton, in 1985 by the Metropolitan Police.

LB: and I'm Lucy Brisbane from inquest in this series, we're diving into our history of campaigning. We'll be doing this through conversations with those at the centre of these stories.

LL: Episode Four: Justice, part two.

MR: And whilst there is no justice and suddenly is realised there is no justice there's just us and we have to support ourselves. So we offer that support you know, you can channel your grief into your campaign, throw it back at them don't take the grief that they've thrown at you how dare they, be strong, be strong together and you can't lose there's no justice anyway.

MUSIC

LB: Last episode, we spoke to Sara Ryan about her son Connor Sparrowhawk and her family’s long struggle for justice.

LL: In this episode, we're continuing to explore what justice means and how we can build it. We'll be hearing from Marcia Rigg campaigner and sister of Sean Rigg, and a good friend of mine. Sean was a black man and father who died following violent police was strained, while it's in a mental health crisis in Brixton in August 2008. Marcia has been fighting for justice ever since.

LB: let's hear from Marcia about what drives her fight.

MR: His body belonged to the state. It didn't belong to us, which we found extraordinary, like, what are you talking about? I could only recognise him by the shape of his fingers because the rest of him was totally unrecognizable and I promised at that point that I was going to get justice and I would never give up.

LB: So Marcia is talking there about the moment when families areable to see the body of their loved one, either before to identify them, or after when the post mortem has happened, which is the very first stage after someone's died. But it's quite harrowing to hear actually how hard it was to recognise him and the impact of the violence and the trauma that his body itself had been through.

LL: Listen to that is very difficult and I could only imagine what that must have been like for her at that time.

LB: I suppose we've spoken already about the inquest process but actually what comes before is, you know, the moment after you find out that your loved one has died and then normally, families will see the body if they choose to and that point that Marcia is describing is in some ways, you get answers because you yourself can see the person who love but in other ways, it raises so many more questions and even when you receive the final post mortem report, which is when the pathologist looks at the body and tries to understand and make sense of what caused the death. Often there are more questions than answers and those reports and they're not totally clear cut and that is the role of the inquest to then kind of go through that and work out what actually happened not just what injuries were on the body but we're talking today about justice and there's this point there where the emotional impact. For Marcia seeing that and seeing the impact physically of what had happened to Sean, is where she made that commitment to move forward and fight for justice. And for so many families, the kind of injustice but also the inhumanity of what happens to their loved ones bodies and the way the state owns the bodies and takes the bodies from the families after they die like losing control all of that the dynamic that, that creates is actually the beginning of kind of, maybe not trusting the process or not feeling that you as a family are the main person in this, it kind of takes away some of that ownership and agency of your loved one.

LL: It does and the other thing that comes up is how insensitive the whole process is, as well, you know, there's us who's grieving and you're dealing with a system that just feels a bit sterile in the way that they deal with people.

LB: What Marcia said feels very graphic but a lot of families feel it's important to bring those moments to light, because actually, it speaks to the inhumanity and also the deep humanity and the physicality of what's happening. These are not just concepts about like, justice and what happened and injustice, the families are seeing the physical harm and ownership of their loved one and their bodies is taken away, and slowly handed back bit by bit.

LL: Yeah and also, I think it gives her a level of understanding of why somebody fights as hard as they do, why you might see how, you know, Marcia, in particular is so passionate when she campaignss ounderstanding where that comes from in terms of that, that when she made that commitment to herself, really joins all those dots together to give you a better understanding of the why, because a lot of times we just see people arrive campaigning, talking about what's happened, you know, but we don't necessarily understand exactly how they got to that point and it's the penny drops, like I get it, I understand, understand why you will move to that point of saying, I'm gonna make this commitment to myself for my brother.

LB: Yeah, the emotion that drives the energy behind those campaigns.

LL: So there's something about the injustice that the person faces, in terms of how they died in the first place and then the injustice of then how they dealt with their bodies dealt within death. So it almost feels like it's a double attack really and it can be quite difficult, because even though that person is no longer alive, it's still very difficult for you to see them in that way, and to know that their body's been disrespected as well and not been treated with, you know, maybe the kind of dignity that we believe that they should be dealt with And that thing of you don't own that they own it and they've got your loved one for that period of time you don't know how they're dealing with your loved one yeah, just because again, another difficult thing to kind of get your head around.

LB: Families are swept up into this legal process and this formal process, through no choice of their own, the bodies are taken ownership of by the state to go through this process and in a sense, that formal process, well, in theory is supposed to bring justice for families, as dictated by the state. In the legal sense of the word justice, is the administration of law, right? If you think about courts and coroner's courts and formal investigations on people with briefcases and big piles of notes, you know, or like the example of if someone steals something from a shop in the eyes of the law, they need to be punished, and they might go to prison, and then justice is served, right, that's justice. But then that doesn't address why someone is stealing or repair the harm of the action. Is that justice, the criminal justice process? And when families are seen in these harrowing situations, they want justice. Is it all about going through the formal process and ticking the boxes?

LL: Well, I think we have to look at how we see justice. And I will say most of us are conditioned to believe that justice is what they tell us it is someone does something wrong you know you're innocent to proven guilty and there's a process that will happen at the end of that process. That person found guilty, then there'll be a sentence or the punishment will fit the crime, right, but the crazy thing about all of that, though, is that the same system that tells us this is what justice is and if you don't abide by this law, this will happen to you and that's supposed to put fear in us to prevent us from doing wrong in the first place. When they are the ones who are committing those crimes they're not following the same rules of process that needs to happen. And nine times that attend, we're not getting the same results in terms of them being found guilty, and then the punishment, fitting the crime, where the state's concern. So you have to reinvent what Justice looks like for you, on a personal level.

LB: So in terms of, you know, honouring what your mum would have wanted, and also honouring what you and your family wanted, did you get the kind of justice that you were looking for?

LL: Well, I think it's important to say that what I wanted, and what I thought my mum would want, were two different things I was in conflict about that in the beginning, that I'm going to be honest but I feel in my heart that she would be proud of what happened as a result of what happened to her.

LB: What was the difference between what you and your mum wanted?

LL: So I'd say initially, I want revenge by I wanted that person who inflicted that harm upon my mum to feel that same level of harm on them and I would say now, probably how I view it is that how I feel now is aligned with what I feel my mum would have wanted and I think it is the best outcome overall. So I really challenge myself on those thoughts and feelings, and say to myself, if this is really about my mum, then I've got to do this in that vein.

LB: And what were the key moments for justice?

LL: So the first thing was the acknowledgement of wrongdoing by the police that acknowledgement, and then the apology that came in acknowledgement was almost the greatest gift that I could give to my mum in her absence, was to make sure that it's recognised for what it was and then the next part was the accountability and I feel the accountability was a combination of my mum, and us, as siblings who witnessed what happened through the accountability part was to acknowledge that not only did you do wrong to my mum, that as us as the children that was in a house that witnessed what happened, that you done wrong to us to which they fought back on, but eventually ended up having to acknowledge that and admit that.

So that became the next thing for us and then the last thing was about the restorative justice aspect of it so now that you acknowledge the wrongdoing, you've apologised for that you've taken some level of accountability for the wider impact of that and now it's about, okay, what are we going to do to make sure that number one, you know, what happened to my mum has not forgotten about and that's where the memorial in Windrush square, you know, the idea of that came about and also acknowledged the people who rose up for that injustice, who were deemed as hooligans by really our heroes of our community and for us to be involved in police training, to ensure tha there's always a reminder, and that we're trying our best to implement lessons learned from what we've gone through.

LB: Since also about trying to create change.

LL: Yes.

LB: So it does seem like there is space for change within the former justice processes. But there's also the importance of broader justice movements around awareness and understanding. In my see as case since Sean was killed, some changes specifically have been brought about off the back of her campaigning. So let's hear about that.

MR: And they were scared and they took him to Brixton police station, a dying man, or he could have died but we will never know because there were no cameras in there. At that time in 2008 cameras did not exist, or body-worn cameras in vehicles, you know, because at the time, my argument was that if cameras were in the van, we would have known what Sean was doing. It's a big brother state is but there's cameras everywhereo nthe bus on the streets everywhere, why aren't there any in a police vehicle where lots of brutality happens and deaths, because all the time we've been campaigning outside Brixton police station, people will tell us their stories you know, and there will have been spat at in the back of vehicles and be beaten up in the back of vehicle. These are real-life stories from the 80s and the 70s we've got no cameras in the back of police vehicles it was extraordinary. Skipping back almost 15 years later, just to interject the death of Deji Omishore, who was tasered in 2022. On Chelsea bridge following a mental health episode, where he was tasered multiple times, there's footage that there was footage, you know, where members of the public saw and that is one of the current cases today, where that family is judicial review in the IOPC because they have not interviewed their police officers in that case and so what actually changed when Sean died, they still don't interview police officers. That's the point that I'm trying to make.

LB: So Marcia is talking about Oladeji Omishore, who was another black man who was in mental health crisis, and ultimately died following police contact after being tasered and there is footage from bystanders and from police body worn video cameras of what happened that was immediately published after his death, which is kind of reminiscent of other incidents like George Floyd in America, Rashan Charles here, where footage was shared and there was a media awareness and Marcia speaks to the importance of having video recordings in police vans and there's also been movements around body worn cameras and other footage being shared as evidence. For her, that's progress but the other point is that it doesn't mean that these processes take that evidence into account that new evidence, and it doesn't mean that we're actually seeing the change or the impact of the change that's needed. So there's pros and cons on both sides.

LL: And I suppose it is that balancing act and there's a fine line between looking at what has changed what has been put in place, and really acknowledging that it is off the back of people campaigning, having their voices heard, holding the system to account that we see those changes, and I think we have to acknowledge them and we should take them from those changes, too and it's important to make sure that people know that those changes are there to protect us, however, not allowing ourselves to become complacent, because there's still so much more to do as well.

LB: And it's complex, right? Because Marcia is talking about a reform like a very direct reform that came from her campaigning but alongside that, there's also, you know, she mentioned, Deji's family taking the independent office for police conduct or the IOPC, taking them to court to judicially review their decision to treat the officers as witnesses, which is, in most cases unless the officers are immediately put under criminal investigation. Those who are even very directly involved in a death are simply treated as witnesses not suspect, in contrast with most criminal cases where someone is involved in a death like a member of the public. It kind of speaks to these continued imbalances we can reform incrementally the system, or we can make improvements to, you know, visibility, and access to evidence, access to information, public awareness and that's all important. But there's also kind of inherent power imbalance that it's still always going to be families versus the state, and you can take legal action, you can make the reforms, but it takes that kind of broader and deeper change happening alongside the more incremental reforms to actually contribute to preventing deaths and deep justice and change. And that's what's so much harder to capture, like, you can understand that. Why is there a campaign for cameras in police cars, and now we have that, and other campaigns and other legal precedents. But you can't really capture the impact of every single family over the years, speaking out about racism, injustice, inequality, and those parts of getting justice, which are arguably more important, or most important, but not easy to kind of package.

LL: So, for the listeners, I think it's important to take away the power of our collective voices So, although when we speak to people we interview, we may be speaking to the person who headed up that campaign. But as you've heard time and time again, it's the support that they have, from their families, from, their community, from other organisations such as INQUEST, and you know, people supporting those campaigns in numbers that actually help to create results. So we all can do our bit basically, by and even if it is just taking out your phone and filming something, if you see something happening, that doesn't look right, because that could form a key part of some evidence, if there was a case as a result of what you've seen. So again, you know, just that tight rope there, between taking strength from some of the things that we've managed to change have in place, that does make a difference, by keeping an eye on some of the things that still needs to be challenged, just like Marcia said about st raight away, those officers shouldn't be seen as witnesses if they are the people who have inflicted the harm on that person so that's another area of focus that we need to be very mindful of. And just to know that it could be any one of us listening right now, who could be faced in those circumstances.

LB: Yeah, and there's, there's two things about the power that we have both to directly bear witness if you happen to come across a situation where police or any other agent of the state is potentially abusing their power. But there's also the kind of broader collective power that we have to bear witness and share and share the voices of families and the stories of people who are dying to kind of add pressure.

LL: And on that note, let's hear some more from Marcia.

MR: And we cannot all be going crazy and be mad when the evidence is compelling, and you have to talk truth to power there isn't any accountability there isn't justice, obviously and we are denied that families have been denied that and we gather at Trafalgar Square, we come with our banners and our T-shirts and that's where some families meet that's when you realise how rampant this issue is for this in this country and when you meet the families of the sponsor understand and you know, that hug is genuine, it' sreally important. It was what keeps it strong and this powerful and you'll see, it's actually a memorial, it's not a protest. It's a memorial in remembrance of our loved ones to tell them that, you know, we remember our loved ones, whereas in the legal challenges and the cases, they just statistic him but they're not they're actually real human beings and somebody that is loved and all families share that and we go to Downing Street and we hand deliver a letter to Downing Street demand justice because we realised that there isn't any and we asked to meet with the Prime Minister and that's been happening for over 25 years we've never met the Prime Minister they've never afforded to meet with us.

LB: The United families and friends' campaign, a coalition of families whose loved ones have died in custody. So, every year since the 90s the United families and friends' campaign have marched to Downing Street on the last Saturday of October, and they will continue to do that until they get the justice that they're calling for. Lee, I know you've gone along to the march and stood alongside those families, what's been your experience?

LL: Well, there's a saying that who feels it knows and when Marcia says, you know, that hug that you get from other family members, there's so much said, in that embrace, but no words are really being communicated. But it's like I, I know, I know, I feel you feel me. So, it's a moment of solidarity, I would say, for families and it's an opportunity for us to come together collectively, because most of the time, you are campaigning in isolation for your loved one and then there's people that will support you on your campaign, but in this moment, it's about al l of the loved ones and it's about all of us coming together collectively and it's such a powerful moment when you see those plaques with names on it, you know, when you see in isolation is one thing you might think, oh, well, you know, that's very rare case. But when you see everyone coming together, and you think, wow, that name, this name, that person, this person, it's a lot and it's quite a powerful message to say and then when she says that it's a memorial. You know, on that day, more than a protest, I get that, because we’re memorialising our loved ones, and saying, you know, their lives matter and still do.

LB: Yeah, and what's really powerful about that is, although it's a Memoria, it's about families coming together in solidarity and also to reflect what you're saying, there's some sense of healing in that connection and there's something really important about coming together there's also something important about doing that marching to Downing Street, and taking that collective and shared struggle, and taking those memories to the doorstep of the people in power. So, it's not a protest, in the traditional sense the speeches are about the people who have died they're also about going on a microphone or a megaphone and saying what happened to those people, and their families haven't got justice and seeing that in a place where there is power and what stands out is Marcia said the Prime Minister hasn't responded, or they've never met a prime minister in those 25 years, which really says something.

LL: It speaks to or reinforces something that we already know and feel like that they don't really care. So, we have to force them to pay attention to what we're going through, and to hear what we've got to say and coming together on that day, allows us to be proactive in our struggle to so we're not just laying down and taking it as a day when we're saying no, we're going to do something about this whether you decide to hear us or not we're still going to make some noise.

LB: And it reminds me of this, obviously, the UFFC match that we spoken about he Grenfell families might regularly and they have their big Memorial March every year on the anniversary and they do a silent march there's other families who have their different events we heard from Sara Ryan in the last episode about the creative ways in which her campaign for justice has responded. Part of this feels like there's such limited accountability through the legal processes are those such barriers to achieving meaningful accountability and change that families take matters into their own hands in some sense, and create something that's different a different type of justice?

LL: Yeah, I think that's born out of not having a choice and deciding not to give up because it is a decision that you have to make just that Marcia made it in that moment when she went to visit her brother's body and she made that commitment to herself, to fight for justice for him. So it's our way of responding in our own unique way as well because if you deal with it in a way that they tell you to deal with it, you wouldn't get anywhere at all so, you know, as Malcolm Xwas, say, by any means necessary.

LB: And it's quite clear that that does have an impact, not necessarily one that we can capture in a linear and clear way but the impact of the visibility, the awareness, the connection between families and everyone that sees that is so powerful, and really important.

LL: So let's hear what Marcia has go to say about that

MR: And whilst there is no justice and suddenly is realised there is no justice, there's just us we have to support ourselves and so we offer that support, you know, you can channel your grief into your campaign, throw it back at them don't take the grief that they've thrown at you How dare they, be strong. Be strong together. And you can't lose. There's no justice anyway. So that's all right. It's not all right but like, because you didn't get justice, it doesn't mean that you did didn't do everything that you could to try and obtain it It's because the system won't give it to you, they are completely unwilling, that wall is solid. It's a hard wall chip down. But you know, it takes years. But nothing lasts forever I'm smiling nothing lasts forever. You know, one day, the chains will be broken. I hope I see in my lifetime, but I'm happy to be part of it.

LB: Do you want to reflect on that?

LL: Yeah. So within Marcia statement that she made. There's a speaking to the reality of where we are today and speaking to the future, in terms of who we want to be and we have to be real in the reality of there's too many families, too many people who have died at the hands of the state that haven't got justice. So therefore, we cannot say, we've got justice, or we're getting justice. So that's the reality of where we're at and when Marcia says, there's no justice, that just us that's like the us, that's like the us, us the bereaved families who are fighting for this justice is just us and there's a lot within that sort of peer-to-peer support that we give to each other. You know, I'm a part of that. The United friends and family group and at times, you know, things get shared with its, you know, there might be some small changes that's been made, and it gets shared, or it could be another person has died at the hands of the state and what that does is give you the opportunity to reach out to that person, show some support to that person share some best practices as well. So some of the justice is through that, too, that we're learning every day and the more and more we share those learnings is the better placed those people are in terms of their own campaigns and going forward. So sometimes we may not receive justice in our own cases. But we may see justice in other people's cases that have been maybe advanced from the work that we've managed to do as well. So yeah, that's that's the that's the sense I get from, you know what, Marcia saying.

LB: Yeah, everyone is contributing. And the point about it being about the people who come together to push for change, that's who it's about. What I think is important to acknowledge is, you and Marcia share a commitment to very public campaigning, and you're outspoken and you'll go on the news, and you'll go on the marches. But not every family fights for justice in that way and also, not every family agrees on what Justice looks like, or how to achieve justice some people have a more radical lens, that super critical of the systems are sort of tear it down other people are more interested in pushing for the incremental changes or the more immediate, direct reforms. But collectively, everyone contributes in their own way. And I think seeing those things together and seeing those family struggles together and bringing those families together through UFFC, through inquest through other collective campaigns. It shows the power of that collective voice exactly like you say, the first family who comes along and has one struggle, every single thing that they do will contribute to the experiences of the next family. Everyone is standing on each other's shoulders. And that's so important, but it's not always visible.

LL: Absolutely it's not an I think this podcast is trying to bring about some of that awareness you don't these are some of the things that are happening in the background, and not everyone is getting to see bereaved families are coming together. We are supporting each other in each other's campaigns we are sharing best practice what we've learned and so on and so forth and we are seeing some small changes that is making a difference yeah, I think it's so important to just recognise that, that that is happening and it's a beautiful thing.

LB: what I think is interesting about how Marcia there's no justice is if you look at her experience and Sean’s case on paper, there was a really critical inquest, lots of evidence was brought against the police and the conclusions were really strong so the lawyers and the system would say, is that not justice. There were also all these other moments where there wasn't justice or accountability in Sean’s case, so that nobody was held to account for misconduct. Nobody was ever criminally charged despite clea revidence of wrongdoing the system did and also didn't deliver justice for Marcia, but she's quite clear on saying there is no justice but what she also says is that, although it's hard to chip the system down and make the changes that we want, nothing lasts forever and there's a lot of hope, in the continued fight for justice that Marcia and all the other families are collectively on and ending on hope for her feels really important because in the face of such darkness, such a horrendous bereavement, we started the episode talking about viewing her brother's body but actually, she's bringing us back with hope for change.

LL: that statement reminds me of something that my solicitor said to me once Raju, from Pat Murphy, after the case, when I was just really like, Okay, I feel like I need to do more, you know, when I want to make some changes, you know, for the people that have supported me for the campaign and my family, I feel like there's so much more that we need to do. And he said, you might not see the fruits of your labour in your time. But trust me, people will benefit from what you have done and that statement, allowed me to stop focusing on what the end goal looks like, because I don't think we've got any control over that. Just do your bit from where you're at and that's what I think, you know, when we look at all the different campaigners, the bereaved families, we've challenged a system in, in our own unique ways. And so there's no one way. That's what I want to say It's wherever you feel, you can have the most impact so some of us do that, you know, outside, and we you know, we do all the campaigning, and some of us feel we need to go in the system, and make the change for me that way, some of us do law changes, some of us is about education, there's so much there's so many different ways to challenge the system and I think we have to continue to do it that way so we're coming at all different angles but ultimately, it's about not giving up.

LB: Yeah, I think what feels really important about that is recognising that the change that people are really striving for the deep change is not always tangible, and not always visible but those incremental steps along the way, are really important part of that. There's a poem from revolutionary letters, Diane di prima, which says it will take all of us pushing out the thing from all the sides to bring it down. There's radical voices, there's reformers, voices, there's critical voices, there's people who want to work within the system. There's all different ways of doing it every single part of that is contributing to change. For INQUEST as an organisation, our vision is to see an end to preventable deaths involving the state and an end to the unjust systems that enable them to happen. That's a big vision and it's a big goal. But ultimately, we believe and we wouldn't do this work if we didn't believe it, that we can work towards making that happen to time where INQUEST UFFC campaigns like us wouldn't need to exist, the deaths wouldn't be happening. And in the rare times that those deaths did happen, there will be an adequate response we do believe that we can achieve that and every year we see little bits of progress, big bits of progress. All of it's important, and every family that comes in and out however much they contributei spart of that and is making that happen.

LL: What came to mind is a saying that if your dreams don't scare you, they're not big enough and going back to that ambitious statement that you said that INQUEST has it has to be that.

LB: Bringing it back. Let's hear from Marcia about what Sean was like yeah, sure, sure was charming and was very handsome. The girls loved them. Because he was a looker. As you can seeh ehad a son, who he was estranged from his son sadly as his son was growing up because of his mental health issues, but his son is now in our life and he's, it's like having Sean back because there's an absolute photocopy of him. He stands like he really looks like in walks like him. His hands are like him. It’s Sean so that's nice and you know, he was just a talented musician. He would write music when he died we found some amazing thingsso he'd written a rap opera he'd written a book, you know, he was remarkable and I loved him so much.

MUSIC

LB: In the next episode, we'll be speaking to Donna Mooney, about what accountability looks like.

LL: Donna's brother Tommy Nicol died of a self-inflicted death in prison whilst on an IPP sentence.

MUSIC

Credits

LB: We know that this is a really difficult episode. If you've been affected by any of the themes that have come up, please go to the links in the Episode Notes.

Did you like this podcast? Visit our website to donate so we can continue to shine a light on state violence, death and resistance. If you think other people would like Unlawful Killing then please rate and review us wherever you get your podcasts, ratings and feedback really help others discover the show.

If you have a story to share, get in touch via communications@inquest.org.uk or on social media @INQUEST.

We'd like to pay tribute to the thousands of bereaved families who have worked alongside INQUEST. Thank you to each and every one of you who have created powerful legacies for your loved ones and contributed to important changes which protect all of us.

Unlawful Killing is a podcast by INQUEST presented by me Lucy Brisbane and Lee Lawrence, produced by Leila Hagman and Naomi Oppenheim, thanks to Aunt Nell Productions for their continued support this podcast is part-funded by the National Lottery Heritage Fund. The music in this podcast is by Dave Okumu. We are grateful that this podcast series is supported by Hodge Jones and Allen a key law firm in the fight for what's right. Their lawyers help people right wrongs, fight injustice and defend people's rights. INQUEST have worked with Hodge Jones & Allen on countless cases from the Marchioness disaster of 1989 to the ongoing Essex Mental Health Inquiry.

And finally, we want to say a special thank you to Marcia Rigg and Rosa Schling. The United Families and Friends Campaign meet on the last Saturday of every October at Trafalgar Square to remember those who have died in state custody. Join us there.

Unlawful Killing

Series 2 | Episode 5: Accountability

Donna Mooney's fight for accountability after her brother's death in prison

Release Date: 19 July 2024

Season: 2

Episode: 5

Presenters: Lee Lawrence and Lucy Brisbane

Guests / Oral History interviewees featured: Donna Mooney

Producers: Leila Hagmann and Naomi Oppenheim

Music: Dave Okumu

Content warning: Prison suicide, self-harm, restraint and racism

Episode length: 35:55

Transcript

LB: Before we start, this episode contains stories of prison suicide, self-harm, restraint and racism. Please be mindful when you choose to listen

MUSIC

LL: You're listening to Unlawful Killing: death resistance and the fight for justice.

LB: A podcast by INQUEST, the only charity fighting alongside families bereaved by deaths involving the state, including police, prison and Mental Health Services.

LL: I'm Lee Lawrence advocate and son of Cherry Groce, who was shot in Brixton, in 1985. By the Metropolitan Police,

LB: And I'm Lucy Brisbane from INQUEST, in this series, we're diving into our history of campaigning. We'll be doing this through conversations with those at the centre of these stories.

LL: Episode Five, Accountability, part one.

DM: I was just really angry, and I guess those two came together and what happens to my brother is a complete injustice and what's happening to people is the same and it just makes me really angry, and I didn't really think about it. I just wanted to make sure that my brother wasn't being demonised anymore than he had been his entire life when he died.

LB: Last episode we heard from campaigner, Marcia about her ongoing fight for justice after her brother Sean Rigg died following police restraint.

LL: In this episode, we speak to Donna Mooney, whose brother Tommy Nickel, died a self-inflicted death in prison. He was on an IPP sentence.

LB: Donna has been at the forefront of campaigning for change and challenging the harmful consequences of this indeterminate sentence.

DM: I am Donna Mooney. I'm the sister of Tommy Nicole, who died almost nine years ago and I am part of the group on grip who campaigns for a form of IPP,

LB: Tommy Nicol died in September 2015, age 37, a self-inflicted death whilst in the custody of The Mount prison. And As Donna mentioned, he was serving an indeterminate IPP sentence for a minimum of four years. But he had been in prison for six years and had no hope at that time of being released. So, Donna, in your own words, can you tell us what happened to Tommy?

DM: So, Tommy was given an IPP sentence with a four-year tariff which he accepted. He was very aware of what he'd done and as the consequences linked to that, and he went in he didn't really understand what the IPP was to begin with, but I guess as time went on here, he began to understand what that was

LB: And Donna, what is an IPP sentence?

DM: IPP stands for indeterminate sentence for public protection. It was a sentence that was introduced in 2005 and abolished in 2012 and d ue to its breach of human rights, it's essentially a sentence with no end date, it was initially meant for 900 people, and it was given to nearly 9000 people at the point of abolition, however, it wasn't published retrospectively. So, we still have 3000 people almost still in prison today serving a few 100 in secure hospitals and 1000s more under licensed conditions in the community. Unfortunately, due to many reasons, people often didn't get out and so what you have today is hundreds of people tend to 15, almost 20 years post that tariff points still in prison never been released with no hope or sight of getting out. So that's causing massive mental health issues. If people do manage to get released, they are then released under quite strict license conditions, and they can be recalled back to prison at any point. The outcome of that is that you have I think, nearly 2000 people in prison today who are backing on recall, and most of those hadn't committed another crime and 70% of those people have been recalled for non-compliance. So, it can be things such as lateness, misunderstandings, false allegations, and they then fall back into that process of having to wait two years or a pro here and you can before they can potentially even be released often people aren't released again. So, Tommy served his four years during that time, he was very well behaved, and he was enhanced prisoner which basically means that you're given jobs where you have to have a lot of trust. So working in the kitchens with knives and things like that he didn't get into any trouble and he had his first parole hearing after the four-year point and he got something called a knock back which is basically when the Robots tell you that you're not going to be released that you have more work to do. And during that program me, he was told that they wanted him to go to a therapeutic community. So, in their years prior, he'd spent a lot of time in that four years trying to get into a therapeutic community. He'd applied it, I think two or three maybe. And he never managed to get onto that, because he doesn't have that control in the prison system. So he got that knocked back at four years, he continued to try and one shutdown of his application, one told him that his application wasn't detailed enough, he was dyslexic, and he filled this form in itself and another one he had applied for on the forms got lost for a year and he kept asking him this year, you know about an update from prison staff, you can't go and check himself because you don't have access to that sort of stuff. They kept saying they were checking, but they never did and so after a year, he finally found out that actually the forms have been lost. So, he comes back to this second parole hearing, and he is told the same thing, you are not progressing, you're not being released, you need to go to a therapeutic community and at that point, his mental health started to deteriorate. He completely segregated himself from people, he asked to go into segregation. And he pretty much spent the rest of the time in segregation. From that point forward. He spent three months in segregation in one prison, where he went on to hunger strikes and that time, he was then moved to The Mount prison where they were aware that he had been in segregation for three months that he'd self-harmed a bit in that time that he’d been on hunger strike, I just put him back on the normal wing and he didn't want to stay there because he couldn't cope with being around other people who are being released. So, he set a small fire in a bin in the room, which they host in town with cold water and left him for a period of time and then they eventually moved him, and he was in segregation, I think in total for about five days and during that time, his mental health nosedive massively, he was self-harming, he was hallucinating, he wasn't sleeping, he wasn't eating. Instead of supporting him, they would restrain him, search him and move into what they call an unfurnished cell, which is a cell with nothing in it other than a mattress. That's it, I moved him back and forth about four or five times in those five days and during that time, at one point, we heard his an officer saying to him, that he would be allowed out if he behaved himself, after he'd been restrained by five prison officers in riot gear and also during that time, the mental health team had asked to see him I think, three or four times and the prison officer said know that he was too dangerous, even for them to seem to a hatch eventually took his own life and he didn't die straight away, though he was taken to hospital unconscious, no family were informed at any point in any of this and he was put on machines that kept him alive for I think, three or four days. Again, my family, they said they couldn't find us they didn't contact the police at any point in that time, he was trying to find us. And then on the day, they said they were switching his machines off they contacted the police and the police found us within 24 hours by that point, they turned his machine off and he died. So, he was on his own with any family.

LL: As I was listening to you speak about that whole process you spoke about it as if you were there with him going through that I just thought wow you know, that was a long, kind of painful suffering that he had gone through and endured and I can totally understand why you feel the way that you do how it makes sense.

DM: Angry just makes me angry, how he was treated either on top of having this horrendous sentence.

LL: You mentioned that your brother had dyslexia and that's something that I've suffered, and still have, so I know how challenging that can be and frustrating when you're not given, you know, the basic tools just to level you up. The question what I wanted to ask is, you know, throughout this series, we've been talking to people about the inquest process, and what it was like and given, you know, the listeners' insight into what that's like for families, could you explain to a little bit more about what that was like for you?

DM: I think when something like this happens, you're in this ball of grief, where you can't really think straight and you can't function properly and then you're faced with all these systems that have to happen, such as the inquest, and it's initially very overwhelming because you're trying to deal with grief life and then suddenly this thing that you have absolutely no idea about, we found barrier after barrier after barrier about getting information about what had actually happened to Tommy and we had a really good legal team thanks to INQUEST, Hodge Jones & Allen and I think one of the things that they talked about in the inquest, they kept saying inquest is a process where you will find that information about what happened, but it does not define who your brother is, or was and I think for me, that was really important to hear. I didn't understand it, and I didn't really want to hear it during the inquest, but at the end of it because the outcome wasn't exactly what we wanted. I'm glad they did that because it prepared me to not feel you even worse, and I already fell because I felt like these people were then judging my brother. But actually it prepared me not to really care that much because they didn't know him I felt like it was very one sided, you know, I felt like Tommy will because he was in prison and be cause he had committed a crime he was demonised completely by all parties, other than I was to the point where, you know, one of the barristers for the NHS England said, we think that he was lying about his mental health, bearing in mind, he's dead.

LL: What was the outcome of the inquest process? And why do you think that was the outcome?

DM: What we wanted was suicide. But we wanted a narrative around the reasons that it impacted if Tommy to take his own life and well, we didn't get that up to the verdict was just suicide.

LL: So, are we right in saying that, through that process, you don't feel like you got accountability?

DM: Absolutely not.

LL: And what about outside of that, you know, I know that you went on to do campaigning, to try and ensure that other people who are going through the same thing, maybe experienced some justice.

DM: I don’t think accountability, I think acknowledgement, I was so angry that nothing, there was no acknowledgement whatsoever about what had been done to my brother and I think there had been a different outcome maybe I wouldn't have campaigned, I don't know. But I think I was so angry at the end of it, and actually so shocked because I lived in a naivety of the world before Tommy died. But you know, if something went wrong, people acknowledge that and they put their hands up to it, I now realise that we don't live in a world like that and that doesn't happen so I think I was so shocked and so angry that I just needed to do something, and then to know that other people would be dying in the same way and that's essentially why I started campaigning, I never set out to set up a campaign I think it kind of just progressed that way. But I know and I don't learn initially, I was just so upset and angry that my brother had been treated so horrendously bad and still, even when he was dead he was treated terribly and there was absolutely no acknowledgement he was demonised further, there was no acknowledgement of any failings, or any wrongdoing, or any stories, which definitely drove me to that. And I guess in terms of the campaign to hard questions for now, if I feel that there's been accountability, I don't feel there has, I think it's an acknowledgement that people know that the sentence is wrong I think if there was true accountability, they would have made all the changes that were needed many years ago.

LL: What made you decide that you was going to be that person to stand up for your brother?

DM: I think I was really angry, I think we grew up with a lot of injustice around us and aimed at us because of where we lived, the colo ur of our skin, the type of family that we were, we faced that a lot as children and I think as an adult, I came out of that and went into education myself and taught worked within a system where that can happen, and I guess tried to make change within that. But I think it made me comfortable within a system of pushing against it and questioning things I wasn't intimidated by anymore, I was just really angry and I guess those two came together and what happened to my brother is a complete injustice and what's happening to people as the same and it just makes me really angry and I didn't really think about it, I just wanted to make sure that my brother wasn't being demonised anymore than he had been his entire life when he died and to know that other people were being treated in the same way who probably have very similar upbringings to my brother and me and ended up where they are for probably similar reasons I think that was probably the reason that I kind of pushed forward. But in the early days, I didn't kind of set out to be campaigning, I set out because I was angry and I wanted some acknowledgment that it was wrong. I think I never wanted to go kind of from the bottom if I didn't want that from the prisons, because they don't care they might say sorry, but they don't really care. They're not going to change anything I'm like, you go straight to the top, you go to the people who can make the change they need to hear what's happening and they sit in a room with me and listen to the story about what's happened to my brother, and see it face to face, what that does to a family because it's not just me, it's my children and my siblings, and my mom, you know, it's like it filters out massively and so initially, that's whatI did I just wanted meetings with people at the top for them to hear what had happened and for them to make change and I think I knew they weren't going to make change like that but I wanted them to hear it. And then I think kind of from that I wanted to understand it a bit more like I wanted to understand how this could happen and why people could allow this to happen and so I decided that I was going to meet with different peoples on the parole board, the Ministry of Justice, prison reform groups, I just wanted to understand there and I think grief can do that too it can maybe send you a little bit crazy sometimes and so for me I just needed to understand it and then I guess from that then grew a campaign and it's quite funny because before UNGRIPP was set up the family member I'd made lots of connections with family members on the on the sentence and people in the sentence and then people trusted me because I you know, I have no agenda here I've had the worst thing possible happen I can get I gain nothing from doing any of this. So there was a level of trust and I think you know, my various family members and I remember one time and remember a family member saying to me, she said she we just set up a website campaign and I said no way. I don't want this to become my life because I knew that it worked because I know whatI'm like and I could see where it might go and I said, No and then a few years later, you know, someone came along and said, we just have a website where we share information and then I was like, great and then it's obviously just snowballed from there where we've kind of collated all the resources that we all have into one place, and it's kind of taken off. So it was never intentional maybe that's why it's led to where it is if it were, if it was intentional, maybe it wouldn't have worked in the same way I don't know.

LL: And I asked them with U NGRIPP. I kind of remember because I was working at INQUEST, obviously, when Tommy's inquest happened, and I remember at the time that you didn't really want to do media interviews, like you were just maybe in a different point of grief where you maybe weren't able to do but also, that wasn't the position you're in and now you've become a very prominent and well known campaigner, around IPP, and you're really a leader, if you look at where the changes are happening, and your voice is very often in the threads of how things are happening, why things are changing, or you're definitely there when you talk about IPP sentences. Can you talk us through what are the kind of key moments that have happened since you've been campaigning from obviously, you know, setting up the website, having those meetings, what's happened and what's changed in that time?

DM: I think in the early days, not very out there person in terms of like, wanting lots of attention or anything like that and I think to do media and stuff like that, it can make you very feel very vulnerable to other people to judgment, I also had to consider, my life I have children, my actual real job, you know, the influence is going to have on all of those things. I think in those early days, I kind of was wary about, you know, being open with things. I think key things that have happened, I think sometimes sitting in rooms with parliamentarians or other people in certain organisations who justify what's happening, I think it st irs up the anger a little bit, almost like I'm going to prove you wrong, because this is terrible. I think having contact with people who are so desperate, they don't know what to do to save their loved ones to save themselves has probably driven that and I think you know, kind of over the time, having connections and discussions and meetings with more people seeing how that could all connect and work together to make things move forward and not be so disjointed. So it's more of a cohesive approach moving forward and I think you know, prior to it being set up, people were doing stuff, you know, there's campaigners who were still out there doing really great work, there's prison reform organisations doing great work, but it was always often in my personal opinion was quite silo. It was never kind of cohesive and I don't know maybe UNGRIPP has played a bit of a role in that because we are open to working with everybody and anybody as long as you know, people are respectful of each other and kind and those kinds of things.

LB: What does handgrip stand for and what are your key demands?

DM: UNGRIPP is a grassroots organisation that is put on led by people directly affected by IPP, we are the voice of people affected by it and everything we do that is our standpoint, we go back to that what do people on the sentence and their families want us to do? What are they saying? What are they sharing with them, but we also look at a wider group of people and from the moment and grip has been set up, he asked us for resentencing that is the safest and the fairest way to fix this so, anyone on the sentence will be resentenced to a fixed determinate sentence with a clear end insight and the release date insight and so you know, that would mean that some people would be released quite quickly in some wouldn't. But they will be given a determinate sentence and you know, everything else is tinkering around the edges. We just had a change go through, which is a small but significant change and it's the first change that's happened in 12 years since the sentence was abolished that is to lower the license length. So people come out on a 99-year license, they can have it revoked 10 years, they apply for that often they're told no. But that's just been taken down to three years where they can apply and then a two-year sunset clause. So I mean, that will lead to about 1800 people coming off of there, which is great, but it's not going to impact anyone directly. So we still have a lot of work to do and while we are not there yet, we are much closer in 2022, the Justice select committee released a report and that was their top recommendation. Bearing in mind when I started campaigning nine years ago, I spoke to a group of professionals who laughed at me and other people when we said resentencing is what should happen they were like that's never going to happen. So to get to where we are today, even though it's taken a very long time it's a step closer to that, you know we've now got acknowledgement of the sentences on just from professionals that have in the field from the Ministry of Justice from MPs and Parliament publicly saying that this is an injustice, it's a stain on the justice system. So you know, change is slow. But we have a change in narrative, a change in mindset, that change is closer than it was nine years ago so we just have to keep going.

LB: So, you kind of mentioned, when you were speaking through the campaigning journey, you've ended up in contact with lots of families of people in prison, and also prisoners themselves. Can you tell us about how that is working with people who are on the sentence and the impact of that?

DM: I mean, I think when we first started having contact with people in prison, it was initially, we had, we were in contact about seven people just to support and now about 400 people and, you know, they write to us all the time saying, how grateful they are for what we're doing, that we actually do care some of them are like, saying that we've saved their lives like, which is amazing, but it's also a lot to carry campaign from grip is a massive part of my life. When you meet families, inquests, they know what you've been through and it's very different. The people I work with, in UNGRIPP their loved ones are still alive and that's amazing and they are suffering their own way, in their own way for their own things the suffering I have is very different because of what's happened to my brother. And I think, INQUEST being with other families who've been through something similar you just get strength from that. It's an unwritten language, I feel like there's a strength you get from families who've been through similar things.

LB: One thing that I just want to reflect on what you said about the changes and the impact of UNGRIPP, and your campaigning, I think you're very modest.

DM: I think it's important to acknowledge the work that everybody does.

LL: 100%, but the collaboration is vital. But the impact that you have had, alongside all the prisoners and the families of prisoners, everyone with UNGRIPP is immeasurable in terms of public awareness, in terms of political and parliamentary awareness, the exhibition that you did, you've done so much, and given so much to all those families and other prisoners. To add to that is really clear and I acknowledge that and just say like, we are in awe of you always and that's why we wanted to talk to you, and what an inspiration so I just want to acknowledge that and then finally, can you tell us who Tommy was as a person.

DM: he was very cheeky he likes to take risks all the time but he was actually very caring. He was the oldest of six of us, and we were the closest and age, you know, and he was always very caring, and he was always looking out for us. But he was always getting up to mischief. There was a fence to climb over, he will be there doing it, he loved music, he loved garage he loves football he really liked cars, which was his downfall, really. But yeah, he was just really happy, kind, despite what he did outside of, you know, his family, kind and caring.

LB: And we speak a lot about how grief fuels campaigning. But also when you hear about your reflections about Tommy, you can hear him much it's about love as well.

MUSIC

LB: So Lee, before we spoke to Donna, what did you know about IPP sentences and what did you think when she was talking?

LL: I have heard of IPP sentences. And I've heard about pupils who have got them. So I had a broad understanding that it was this sentence that had no real end date, and how unfair those sentences were. But I learned a lot more when Donna came in and explained it and I think it's different when you understand it from like a kind of personal lens, when you're able to use someone's specific story, and take you for a journey of what that really means for that person because we can hear these things and there's some people that want tougher sentences or some horrific crimes that are committed. So when they come up with a new sentence, that for some people that be like so glad that, you know, some of these dangerous people will be taken off our streets. But what's really interesting in what was said was that there was like 900 people that this sentence was supposed to be for, but it ended up being 9000 people who were caught up in it, and it's that abuse, really, of that power. And you know, that sentence that I feel was really the sad thing that there was some people that was caught up in that that should never have been, you know, in the first place.

LB: Yeah, I think that was interesting hearing you Donna's perspective and kind of what happened to Tommy but when you look at it more broadly, like you say, it's about creating justice policy that's based on extremes and it's a lot of our justice system is kind of built not on evidence of what works and evidence of what prevents harm in our society but actually sort of reactive moments when there's like an extreme case, which the IPP sentence came from, when there's an extreme case, and then you go like, right, we're gonna sort this out, this is what we're gonna do, we're gonna create this really harsh sentence and David Blunkett, who created the IPP sentence when he was home secretary, in Tony Blair's government in 2003, he said that it was his biggest regret, and knowing the impact that those extreme policies have, when they're not applied, either as expected or when they are applied and they don't mean what they seem to mean in the moment. I think prison policy and policing feels very much based on these extreme moments and based on feeling and emotion and what works in politics and what works in the media, the headlines are not so much about people. And then you hear Donna talk about Tommy and she said that he understood there needs to be consequences for his actions. But then you hear this catch-22 of how he's basically trapped in a system where you can't get on the programs that he needs to get on to get parole, because they're not being offered. and all these things about his applications being lost, and the kind of loop and the cycle and he's just stuck. It's so obviously not fair and if that's what people knew, in the beginning, when he created these extreme sentences, you don't really think that they would be made like that.

LL: Yeah, I think this is a case for where the punishment didn't fit the crime he essentially got a life sentence and died in prison that's like you might as well just giving them the death sentence essentially.

LB: What's even more maddening about Tommy's case is that the IPP sentence was scrapped three years before he died, because there was already widespread understanding and acknowledgement that this sentence wasn't having the effect that it was intended to have, and was ultimately a harmful and problematic sentence. So nobody else was getting those sentences but still, 1000s of people were in prison, just like languishing because nothing was being done and what's amazing about Donna's story, she spoke about going through the inquest process, and getting there and nobody understood any of this. There wasn't acknowledgement the coroner wouldn't include the IPP sentence in the terms of reference. Since then, in the nine years that have followed since Tommy's death, Donna has become a reluctant but impactful campaigner and her work alongside the work of others, has created so much more awareness and I think what was interesting about that is how necessary, Donna's voice has been in the movement for change, because they already scrapped the sentence and yet, they still didn't acknowledge or see the humanity of the people that were still in prison. So she's really brought that to the fore, and created her own kind of accountability that she didn't get through the inquest process, and that Tommy never got.

LL: Yeah, and it's sad, sad that lives had to be sacrificed in order for there to be any type of change. So let's just acknowledge that, first and foremost, however, to give huge credit, to Donna, and the many other people who have campaigned for their loved ones, and for people who are still in prison, and their voices are being heard now, finally, right. So as you said, there's a little bit of light at the end of the tunnel in terms of theory, some accountability, because they're, they're moving those mountains, and breaking some of those chains, and getting people who are really fixed in these ideas that you know, this is a solution to now I think, you know what, we did get it wrong. We do regret what's happened, and we do need to make change and one of the things that she was working towards was about getting people re-sentenced, that are actually online PPS, so that therefore those people have at least a date to look forward to in terms of release.

LB: What was really amazing when we spoke to Donna, just a few days before the victims and prisoners Bill had passed through Parliament, which brought into law a really significant steps forward and changes around the IPP sentences. And as she acknowledged, those are some of the most significant changes that there have been in in recent years. resentencing we're not there yet. But there is more conversation about the potential and the need for resentencing. But the changes that were introduced were around a really significant kind of cohort of people that are impacted by the sentence. So people have been released and then recalled to prison. So its changes to the timeframes in which people can be recalled and bringing that down from 99 years to then there have been different points of review, which Donna speaks about. There's like massive step forwards but I think the important thing which she acknowledges is, when she started having the conversation about resentencing professionals laughed at her and now it's a completely legitimate demand that much more mainstream prison reform and criminal justice reform organisations are on board with. So there's accountability in terms of steps forward and there's also a changing awareness understanding, and a different narrative, which has created this potential for change, which is so much bigger than what was there before.

LL: And that's why it's so important not to give up as much as you know where you start. It can feel so hopeless in terms of that quest, but it's in the not giving up is where we see, you know, the progress. So kudos and credit to Donna and the many people who are behind that campaign. There's so many lives that could be saved and it's not just the people that are in prison, it's their families who are suffering as well so I think we need to also consider the wider impact and implications of these sentences.

LB: There's one line that Donna said, which kind of stuck in my head where she just in passing said, Grief can make you do crazy things and I think, as you've kind of said, and as we've acknowledged throughout this podcast, grief, makes you so powerful if you can channel it, and if you're able to channel it, and you're supported and that's what we're always talking about bereaved families, voices, I saw how powerful and impactful and important in the conversations that we're having, they can't be ignored. And that is what accountability looks like.

LB: In the next episode, we'll continue to explore what accountability looks like, and how different communities have taken it into their own hands.

LL: We will be doing this with the help of Kevin blow coordinator of net Pol, the network for police monitoring, and a former employee and trustee of Inquest.

KB: And it does seem at times as though we haven't really moved any further. I mean attitudes to a certain extent of change to some of this stuff. But the police still lie whenever there's a custody death, and then their primary concern is still protecting their own reputation and none of that's changed other than they'll ever will because that's the nature of what the police are.

MUSIC

Credits

LB: We know that this is a really difficult episode. If you've been affected by any of the themes that have come up, please go to the links in the Episode Notes.

Did you like this podcast? Visit our website to donate so we can continue to shine a light on state violence, death and resistance. If you think other people would like Unlawful Killing then please rate and review us wherever you get your podcasts, ratings and feedback really help others discover the show.

If you have a story to share, get in touch via communications@inquest.org.uk or on social media @INQUEST.

We'd like to pay tribute to the thousands of bereaved families who have worked alongside INQUEST. Thank you to each and every one of you who have created powerful legacies for your loved ones and contributed to important changes which protect all of us.

Unlawful Killing is a podcast by INQUEST presented by me Lucy Brisbane and Lee Lawrence, produced by Leila Hagman and Naomi Oppenheim, thanks to Aunt Nell Productions for their continued support this podcast is part-funded by the National Lottery Heritage Fund. The music in this podcast is by Dave Okumu. We are grateful that this podcast series is supported by Hodge Jones and Allen a key law firm in the fight for what's right. Their lawyers help people right wrongs, fight injustice and defend people's rights. INQUEST have worked with Hodge Jones & Allen on countless cases from the Marchioness disaster of 1989 to the ongoing Essex Mental Health Inquiry.

We want to say a special thank you to Donna Mooney for sharing her story in this episode.

Unlawful Killing

Series 2 | Episode 6: Accountability 

Donna Mooney's fight for accountability after her brother's death in prison

Release Date: 2 August 2024

Season: 2

Episode: 6

Presenters: Lee Lawrence and Lucy Brisbane

Guests / Oral History interviewees featured: Kevin Blowe

Producers: Leila Hagmann and Naomi Oppenheim

Music: Dave Okumu

Content warning: Police violence, death and racism

Episode length: 43:40

Transcript

LB: Before we start, this episode contains stories of police violence, death and racism. Please be mindful when you choose to listen.

MUSIC

LL: You're listening to Unlawful Killing: death resistance and the fight for justice.

LB: A podcast by INQUEST, the only charity fighting alongside families bereaved by deaths involving the state, including police, prison and Mental Health Services.

LL: I'm Lee Lawrence advocate and son of Cherry Groce, who was shot in Brixton, in 1985 by the Metropolitan Police

LB: And I'm Lucy Brisbane from INQUEST. In this series, we're diving into our history of campaigning. We'll be doing this through conversations with those at the centre of these stories.

MUSIC

LB: Episode Six, Accountability, part two.

LL: Last episode, we spoke to Donna Mooney about her brother Tommy Nicole, and her ongoing campaign for change.

LL: Donna story shows us how the voices of those directly impacted can hold institutions to account

LB: In this episode, we're continuing to look at how we can hold the systems that harm us accountable, and how communities past and present fight for that. We'll be hearing from Kevin Blowe, the coordinator of NETPOL, the network for police monitoring, and a former employee and trustee of INQUEST.

MUSIC

LL: Accountability is one of those words that gets thrown around a lot in talking about accountability. What does he actually mean?

LB: When you look at the actual definition of accountability, it's an obligation or a willingness to account for one's actions. But what we know from our work is that systems very often have to be forced to take accountability and are very rarely willing to do so. So in this work, there's a certain type of conversation about accountability, that it's very often about the struggle to get accountability, and the fight for it.

LL: So what we're saying Lucy, when it comes to death at the hands of the state, there's never normally a willingness to hold themselves accountable in terms of recognising what's been done, and also looking at what do they do to change for the better and most of the time, it's families who have lost their loved ones is campaigners who are constantly putting the pressure on for these institutions to change and to force change, rather than them just having this kind of insight or this moment of reality, where they think, Oh, we're doing things running wrong here. How can we do it better?

LB: And something that I think families have repeatedly told us is that they came to these processes naively, in the words of a lot of the people that we've spoken to naively thinking that the systems would be accountable, and that something's gone wrong and therefore, they'll go through these processes, systems will acknowledge that issues and try their best to change. But then you get here and sadly, that's not what happens there wouldn't be this podcast, that wouldn't be INQUEST they need to be forced and it takes the voices of families to do that.

LL: I don't get it, I understand why families would think that the state would see the errors and be forthcoming in wanting to own up to that and do something about it because that's what they are constantly encouraging us to do as ordinary people. You do something wrong, hold your hands up, and the punishment will be lighter, and it will be better for everyone else. If you admit you were wrong, be prepared to take the consequences and never do it again, right, that's what we're told. So therefore, why is it that they don't take their own advice that they dish out so much, and they do lie, and they do try to avoid accepting liability, they do try to avoid accepting accountability and in terms of changing is, you know, it's so hard to get them to even see their wrongdoings, let alone implement any changes or resolve that.

LB: And because of that, families are forced to become campaigners and advocates for their own rights, and then very often advocates for the rights of others in similar situations more broadly. What we also know is that families are coming into those spaces, those political spaces, and very often becoming part of a broader movement that they maybe weren't necessarily part of before and when you look at the history, the rich history of movements for justice, and movements for accountability for the systems, there's always been so much going on and very often deaths are kind of these turning points or these points of greater awareness. But on the ground is all this grassroots work, clicking away in the background sort of waiting for these moments to come so that they can respond.

LL: So Lucy, we spoke a lot about and explored and interviewed a lot of different people who have found themselves as campaigners, but never really signed up to it voluntarily. It's just because, you know, circumstances have prevailed. However, there are some people who campaign or set up organisations who have not necessarily lost a loved one, but they see the injustice is and they have decided to take upon themselves to do something about him. Let's explore that a bit.

MUSIC

KB: The far right were mobilising in Tower Hamlets and came they got a counsellor at Tower Hamlets. There was big mobilisations by the Nazi skinhead music movement that were resisted, and also the rise of racist violence. So, the girl's murder in South London, and then obviously, Stephen Lawrence is murder. And so wrapped up in all that, that's the big stuff but it locally, a lot of the stuff we were doing was, you know, the stuff around racist violence, but a lot of it was a bout policing that always was from the beginning you know it was about policing, generally, kind of low level, what you might call low level stuff, so stop and search, poor responses to racist violence. Just kind of random harassment of kids basically so much of it was kind of quite often very violent. So, this stuff around what we ended up doing around deaths, deaths in custody didn't really happen. So that I probably been an activist in for a couple of years before we first started doing that. So, it was whenever Shiji Lapite died, that was 1994.

AM: So, what's the history of new monitoring projects? And what kind of organisation is and its relationship to other organisations?

KB: Yeah, so it had come out of community campaigns in the late 70s, against racist violence and it had been formed by a combination of some of the activists, particularly from the Punjabi community in East London, and kind of white leftists, basically, to try and set up a whiter a means of survival, if you like in relation, because it was really hard for people to be able to know what their rights are or do any follow up or make complaints and some of the people who've been involved in the in the local law centre, originally, the Law Centres movement was be influenced, I think, on the emergence of those groups. and then it got some fund, because it was calling for, particularly issues around, you know, police accountability. So policing was only half of what NETPOL and it certainly wasn't strictly a police monitoring group it was a monitoring group. But it was such a fundamental element of the work, they got some funding from the GLCs police committee to do to do some more work on that. And at that time, they were probably 11 or 12 groups, early to mid 80s, most of which didn't survive. The ones that did tended to be the ones that have come out from rather than just being created and that had come out of kind of mass struggles that take place in 70s and they had a bit of a base of energy below them pushing it up.

AM: Roots in the community.

KB: Yeah, well, we more than that, though. I mean, energy it really the energy there. So I think that's probably myself all the new Ember the two ones that that made it out of that period, and we're still around in the late 80s and early 90s when I first got involved.

LB: So that was Kevin Blowe in conversation with Alfie Meadows as part of our oral history project, speaking about the kind of history of community grassroots movements, responding to police, racism, racism in communities, and also the far right as it was growing in the sort of late 70s and 80s. Kevin also spoke about the GLC, which is the Greater London Council which funded some of them were radical community groups at that time. So Kevin spoke about the Newham monitoring project, which lasted many, many years after the 80s and then kind of went on to feed into what NETPOL does today. He also mentioned Shiji Lapite who died in December 1994, a 34-year-old Nigerian asylum seeker, who died in the back of a police van shortly after being detained by two officers from stoke Newington police station and that inquest concluded with an unlawful killing verdict, which was the second in three months following the death of a man in police custody. And that triggered really significant public outcry and fresh controversy about the use of neck holds by police when controlling, and restraining people. What was also really significant about that case in the 90s, was for the first time in England, a judicial review required the Crown Prosecution Service, to reassess their decision not to prosecute the police. And that prompted an inspection and investigation by the European Committee for the prevention of torture leading to the abolition of the Police Complaints authority, which was essentially what the IOPC, the independent office for police conduct is today, it was the early iteration of that, and to an inquiry into the work of the Crown Prosecution Service. So it's a really significant case, that was in the 90s. Kevin's also talking about movements in the 80s and late 70s, where there was loads of response from the ground from the grassroots to police, racism, police violence, but the broader racism in communities.

LL: I think it's important to, for us to really understand in context that today, we can take for granted that we got social media, and information get out quite quickly about something that has happened with back then these groups would have been responsible for making sure that word spread within our communities about what has happened, they would be getting leaflets done, maybe posters put up and really going into places it within the community where, you know, whether it's like community centres, and places where people would frequent to make sure that we knew what was happening and it's through that awareness, that then attention would come to these cases and maybe that informed the kind of outcome of these cases as well. So I think it's important to put that in context because now it may not seem that these organisations, you know, do much, you know, what are they there, for some people, this could be the first time you're hearing about these monitoring groups that they even exist

LB: and they were a lot more about being based in the community that you're physically and connecting to other community organisations. I think also something to pick up is that the South Hall, kind of monitoring work that was going on Blair Peach’s, death, which we heard about way back in the first episode was within that community and the response to his death came out of the activism in South Hall, which was very connected, clear pitch was a white man, but he was at a protest against the national friend and it was the Asian community in South Hall that came together and responded as well. Yeah, there's all these kind of community connections, and the landscape does look very different today but there are still grassroots grips and there's still organising going on this all about police accountability. So should we hear a bit more from Kevin about what that accountability might look like?

KB: And the more interesting development is this emergent, which we hopefully will happen in a bigger way and will also be sustainable of new cop watch groups

AM: Can you say more about these.

KB: Yeah, so essentially what they are is there's this discussion, this tactic of the need to be able to ground that kind of opposition to racism, oppressive policing in local communities. I don't know entirely how much some of that has worked because some of the cop watch groups are essentially not really doing an awful lot of community work at all they just shit-posting on Twitter. She's not community work at all right but some of the, you know, the beginning to have those conversations about what can we do and what can we how can we make ourselves useful which is the point. I've been trying to get across to people that the cop watching or police monitoring is not the same as a reading group about abolitionism. It's not the same as a discussion, political discussion about the nature of policing is a service. And if you're not making yourself useful to a local community in the way that I think cop monitoring project and cell phone monitoring group did, is what we can offer you an emergency helpline, access to lawyers, basic information on your rights, all that sort of thing, then you're not going to be sustainable in the long term. And it looks as though some of the groups are actually beginning to have that conversation. So, Bristol cop watchers meeting regularly. There's a few groups in South London, that are really beginning to get to be able to think about these things through of course, it's going to take time.

AM: And how do you think that kind of work relates to what INQUEST are doing and what's that relationship been like.

KB: When there's a death in custody, Lamberth or Southwark and if there's a well organised, cop-watch group in that area, with roots in that community, the ability of the to be able to mobilise people to challenge the police's narrative, and work with INQUEST to make sure that that happens, becomes so much easier, right, so the difficulty is when you when a custody death happens, either there's no support, or there's some charlatan who wants to jump on board because this is an opportunity to kind of, you know, big themselves up or wherever and INQUEST can't be everywhere, it needs people It needs people to work with on the ground. A part of the reason I think why the relationship with Newham monitoring project works is because there were people on the ground, there was somebody you could go and talk to and say, what are we gonna do about this?

LB: Kevin is like the dad of all cop watches, that's actually how I see him he's like a key character and not just him there's like lots of people who've been doing this work since forever, that are just always around, always active there for new generations of activists to connect with and learn from and grow with there's lots of people that have been doing this work since the 80s, that are informing the movements today. But there's also kind of a young activists who are not necessarily, as Kevin reflects, embedded in the communities that they're in, or embedded in the history of these movements, and not necessarily learning the lessons that have already been learned. But they're really important, and integral to broader movements to have these people that are going to turn up and take part and want to get involved.

LL: You know, Kevin is rich in experience and knowledge and as you said, there was some things that he said there, which means we will sense you know, the organisations that will survive are the ones that are rooted in the communities in which you know, these things happen and when he said that, to class yourself as a, as a real community group, you have to be of service and there's this kind of rich history of that, that we can learn from and do learn from and at INQUEST, we have this 40 year well, more than 40 year history, where we've very much grown up out of that. But I think our value is in continuing to learn and listen to the other movements that are happening around us, as we increasingly are a more sort of respected and legitimate NGO or charity, that's one position to be in. But we also need to always be open to the people on the ground. But he also makes a really important point about when a death happens, if there are these movements, they're waiting to sort of receive families and work together with people, then there's always going to be a better response or there's going to be a better campaign. And I think that's where it's really useful to acknowledge the work of the United families and friends campaign, who are on the ground for families, and it's a network of families who are going to go out and march every year. And at that March every year, a new family turns up and is sort of adopted into the movement. So that's one example of very much family led movement. But there's lots happening in different areas, not just in London as well, which we have to acknowledge. Kevin mentioned Bristol, there's loads happening in Manchester, there's loads happening in the Midlands, Scotland as well, with the Sheku Bayoh inquiry and the movements that have grown out of that kind of response to Sheku Bayoh death there's so much happening on the ground.

LL: And I think with all of that, it tells us something that if there is so much happening, there are all these different organisations out there, that we still got a major problem, or they wouldn't need to be in existence.

LB: 100%

LL: Right. So, you know, for people that are listening, it's really important that we, we get that message. At the very least, there's still so much more to do, because we're not there yet.

LB: And we're talking about accountability, right? Sometimes, when you speak about individual cases in isolation, you're talking about accountability for something specific, an incident that happened, learning from that one incident. But you can also think of accountability as a practice as an ongoing thing that needs to happen all the time and these grassroots movements, and organisations and community groups are part of holding institutions, not just the police we are speaking mainly about the police in this context, but more broadly, institutions being held accountable all the time, because they have to answer to these groups on the ground and because these groups are watching them and let you say, that's because we know, the institutions are not necessarily reflecting and learning and developing in the way that communities would want. So you need these groups to be there, and continue to remind and push and agitate, and talk about and raise awareness of the issues that are happening in their communities, systemic issues, and calling for change.

LL: Absolutely and for some people that's very still isolated in their own case and that's fine, because sometimes when you do the best, within your own case, by default, other people benefit anyway and then there were some people are very active in saying, it's not just about my case, it's about all of these other cases, it's about these policies, and how they work and how they effect so many people have done, we will do and will continue to, if we don't do something about it, you know, accountability can be looked at in any of those ways. Both still very important and accurate to what we described as accountability when we looked at in the dictionary, but we know that in these cases, the willingness doesn't exist. So it's always down to obligation and it's how we get these organisations to take accountability. But we're the ones that's going to have to do it.

LB: And on that note, Lee, let's hear from Kevin about police accountability in practice and what's changed since the 80s.

KB: Because INQUEST is still primarily a campaigning organisation, it still has a theory of change, it is pushing, trying to push to make significant changes that will make a difference to people and it's not, you know, they're not particularly difficult concepts to talk to understand either in a proper police accountability, proper funding for the inquest system, proper mechanisms for ensuring that the other bodies are held account in the in the circumstances of the causes of death takes place and it does seem at times as though we haven't really moved any, any further, I mean, attitudes, to a certain extent of change to some of this stuff, but the police don't lie. They would whenever there's a custody death and then they there's their primary concern is still protecting their own reputation and none of that's changed and that's partly I don't think I'll ever will, because that's the nature of what the police are.

AM: And the deaths continue?

KB: They do obviously, the numbers aren't the most important thing. So they, you know, IPCC like say, oh, yeah, we've had less deaths in police custody this year than we had from last year. Okay. That's not a victory because those are all a proportion of those, those numbers are going to be people where those deaths were preventable and as long as there's a preventable death, then there is there's a challenge to you to explain why you didn't prevent it so I mean, I guess to answer the question, the impact of what INQUEST has done for me personally, is difficult one to answer, primarily, because I think I think of it in terms of the broader things that as movements we've achieved, rather than just an organisation. So I do think there's a greater awareness of the failings of the police. I do think that we couldn't have had a conversation at all about abolitionism 20 years ago. In fact we weren't having that conversation at all it was a struggle to just get people to understand issues around accountability never mind anything else so I think that's probably the change but as a pretty respectable, pretty mainstream NGO, in some ways. INQUEST does talk about the question of abolitionism in a way that it can do with some degree of authority, right, so alternatives to custody, the inappropriateness of using the police and police violence to deal with mental health crisis, for instance, those are conversations that need to happen more and more and because it's worked with so many families, and because it carries that kind of body of knowledge and experience, then is in a very good position to be able to articulate.

LB: So Kevin touches on INQUEST’s position as quite a respectable organisation in some circles, depends who you talk to, that can also speak and be taken seriously when speaking about more abolitionist principles. So by that we mean transformative viewpoints, thinking about not just reforming systems like prison, police, and to some extent mental health institutions, but actually thinking about how we might want to abolish or totally transform those systems from the ground up to create alternatives and the conversation about that has changed and evolved so much in recent years, in recent decades, and it ebbs and flows, when it's acceptable to talk about things in those terms. So more recently in language around defunding the police has become a lot more mainstream since 2020. There's also conversations that again, go back much longer and deeper around abolishing prisons or alternatives to prisons INQUEST very much came out of movements in the 80s, which were about abolishing prison. So radical alternatives to prison was one of the groups that kind of contributed to the initial stages in the founding of INQUEST. But so were those movements directly responding to deaths in police custody, working with families, is all very much there in the background, and these movements have been happening. But that level of accountability, which is about complete root and branch change, having conversations about that isn't always possible and it's quite an outsider perspective. There are other perspectives that are more about how can we take what we have and make it better, do we need to put everything on the bin and start again Versus complete overhaul. Or is there a middle ground? There's lots of different ways of thinking about it and across the movements that are responding to deaths, but also broader in justices there are many, many different approaches and opinions, which you know, all too well.

LL: Yes, you're right are first of all want to say, I don't believe there's a wrong or right. I think if you're, if you are on the side of challenging these systems, to become better, so that we can prevent these things from happening in the future, then as far as I'm concerned, we are all on the same team that even if you're somebody that says, oh, that's abolish slavery again, and that comes from a space of for the greater good and you really believe that that is the answer, then fine, wherever it takes because I' m a great believer in restorative justice and the three pillars of restorative justice is encounter, repair, transform and that speaks a lot to my personal journey. The Accountability part for us was about the MET accepting that shooting my mum wrongfully shooting my mum, in front of us as children yeah, the accountability for the impact that that had on us and that's what they were fighting back on, because they said they owed no duty of care to the children in the house. Now, bear in mind, although they accepted that in court, it was only when we went into mediation, that they fully took that on board. What did that mean? And that was the efforts of us as a family, really making sure that you understood what that meant. You understood what life was like before, you understood our perspective and what happened on that day, and you understood the huge impact that it had on us after and then that was what the basis of the next conversation was built upon. Which was okay, well, what are we going to do to make sure that what happened to my mum is remembered and just not just a moment in time, what are we going to do to ensure lessons have been learned? What are we going to do to ensure that those lessons are implemented and that we are a part of that journey. So that directly informs the work that I do now around training, we're on a mission to make sure that the whole organisation understands, once upon a time, this happened, it was wrong, you've admitted it and we are going to make sure that this doesn't happen again. That's our intention though, whether we achieve that or not, is another thing but that ongoing accountability is just making sure that, that message is drummed home all the time wherever we can, however we can.

LB: So in that sense, you're speaking about accountability as acceptance and kind of institutional acceptance of wrongdoing. But also acceptance, that there's a need for change and understanding what that change should be.

LL: You know, it's a mammoth task that we've taken on and I'll be honest with you there's moments where you're doing the work and you could see that the work is making a difference and there's other times when you're really challenged in doing the work, and you ask yourself, you know, we wasted our time.

LB: Yeah

LL: And there's something you got those serious conversations and when that happens, I just have to go back to ultimately, what is my intention?

LB: You mentioned this phrase, lessons learned, which a lot of people who have been in this space balk at that phrase, because there's this feeling that lessons are never learned and there's people who speak about this from the outside, who feel like they're never going to be learned and we need to organi se in different ways and create alternatives to policing prisons, the mental health services that we have now, because the very foundations of these organisations are not set up to serve our communities and the people who need support. The most, there's a history behind that and that's something I know that you bring up in the training that you give to police officers and something that you are very aware of the history policing.

LL: Yeah, one of the things I tried to do in the delivery of the training that we we've developed is to, number one, understand the organisation which you work in, understand, what's the motivation for there to be a police force or service in the beginning. That's one of the one of the first people were talking about Robert Peel, but there was somebody called Patrick Cahoon. Patrick Cahoon was the architect of policing and Robert Peel was the builder and he was a magistrate and a merchant. So this is somebody who was looking out for his best interests, no goods were coming in. It was all part of the slave trade and all of that stuff and then there people were stealing those goods on the docks. So he was thinking, I need to set up some type of organisation that's going to protect, protect our stuff. So my sister put it well, he said, you know, the police was really about protecting property and land. That's essentially what it was built for

LB: The irony that these were colonisers and slave owners who were trying to protect their property from being stolen.

LL: Exactly. So it was never, it never had the intention of being what it suggests to be today. So therefore, you know, there was like the statement made by a scholar, called Lee, by the way, who said, English police is the child of centuries of conflict and experiment, it sums it up really well, because that's what it you know, is constantly having to change to meet the needs of, I suppose, the wealthy, and then the ordinary people who are saying, n o, you know, this is supposed to be for us and these are the things that we want it to be. So, it's constantly going through that. But ultimately, what why I've decided to go down this road is I'm of the view that when we look at the these institutions, and when we look at it from that perspective, it's like a monster in is huge in order to tackle that is almost impossible, but behind those institutions are people and I think those people who walked into my house that they bought. Not even walked in, bursting, kicked the door down and shot my mum, if they had a sense of who we were, as a community, if they had a sense of how imbalanced things were for us, if they had a sense of history, and what's brought them to this point, they may have made different decisions, if they'd known differently. So I'm on a journey to say, Okay, now, you know, you can't walk out of my session and saying you didn't know. In a sense, I'm hoping for those who do gay and do learn, and do understand, will think, before they act and that could be another life that we save in the future.

LB: And that training that you're talking about came out of you going through these restorative justice processes with the police didn't it and you then taking on a role as someone who comes and educates them, which is amazing that you're willing to do that. There will be other families who wouldn't have the same optimism? Why no, there are other families who don't share your optimism and hope for the change. But from where I stand, I can see that you also need those skeptical voices, those critical voices that are not going to walk into the institution and try and educate them that are standing on the outside and trying to tear it down. I think you need all of it, we can see from our position as INQUEST recommends different families have different perspective and different movements and organisations and people in power people with very little power, but loud voices, you need all of those things. So on that note, if people are listening to this podcast, and they're hearing the stories of families, that injustice is, and thinking, I want to do something about this, I want to be part of these movements, I want to stand with bereaved people, what can they do, what's our kind of call to action to our listeners,

LL: Do what you can from where you are, and use what you have and I say that from a perspective of we will have different skill set. I could admire the person who's out there as an activist saying, we need to just defund the police and start all over again. And but that's not my skill set. Right? That's not what I feel I bring to the table as a quality. So I've got to use what I have and my thing is that I thought I have a way of helping people to see things from a different perspective that’s where I see my talents,

LB: A mediator.

LL: A mediator.

LB: A great mediator.

LL: So but it all counts and it all makes a difference. So first of all, where are you? What can you do from where you're at? What skills have you got? And how can you lend that to the cause.

LB: And I guess what's important for people is to look at what's already going on in their communities. Is there a local cop watch group? Is there a family campaign from where they are that they can support, whether that's sharing spreading the message, offering their skill sets up to individual campaigns, campaign groups, there's very often already stuff going on and if there isn't stuff going on, there's stuff you can do to contribute to national movements, there's local movements. So one thing is cop watches, a less radical version of that is independent custody visiting where you can volunteer with custody visitor, there's prisoner solidarity work, people can be pen pals, they can write to prisoners, they can work with organisations in local communities, you can visit prisons. There's awareness raising and learning. I know Kevin mentioned reading groups, which is one part of taking. There's having conversations like the conversations we have on this podcast and taking those stories to people who might not hear those conversations, people who might not be seeking out this information. Every year. There's the United families and friends campaign March, last Saturday in October in London turn up there's one in Scotland as well. There's also putting your money where your mouth is and we have to say it you can donate to organisations. For example, INQUEST is one there are others such as UFFC, there's NETPOL, there's the national Mikey Powell Memorial Family Fund. There's places you can get money to they're doing the work. You can share their messages, you can share your skills. There's so much that you can do but the first step is just listening, learning and being open.

LL: Absolutely, and there's also the Cherry Groce Foundation and the other thing I just want to say that you also can listen to every episode of each podcast that we've produced and listen to ideas from those podcasts is all there.

LB: And on that note, in these past two series, we've looked at the institutions that are failing to keep us safe, and some of the ways in which families fight back for truth, justice, and accountability.

LL: Next series will be looking outward at how we can build movements and bring about change that can protect us all.

LB: We'll continue to hear from families at the heart of these struggles, as well as lawyers, campaigners and others who have joined their fight.

MUSIC

Credits

LB: We know that this is a really difficult episode. If you've been affected by any of the themes that have come up, please go to the links in the Episode Notes.

Did you like this podcast? Visit our website to donate so we can continue to shine a light on state violence, death and resistance. If you think other people would like Unlawful Killing then please rate and review us wherever you get your podcasts, ratings and feedback really help others discover the show.

If you have a story to share, get in touch via communications@inquest.org.uk or on social media @INQUEST.

We'd like to pay tribute to the thousands of bereaved families who have worked alongside INQUEST. Thank you to each and every one of you who have created powerful legacies for your loved ones and contributed to important changes which protect all of us.

Unlawful Killing is a podcast by INQUEST presented by me Lucy Brisbane and Lee Lawrence, produced by Leila Hagman and Naomi Oppenheim, thanks to Aunt Nell Productions for their continued support this podcast is part-funded by the National Lottery Heritage Fund. The music in this podcast is by Dave Okumu. We are grateful that this podcast series is supported by Hodge Jones and Allen a key law firm in the fight for what's right. Their lawyers help people right wrongs, fight injustice and defend people's rights. INQUEST have worked with Hodge Jones & Allen on countless cases from the Marchioness disaster of 1989 to the ongoing Essex Mental Health Inquiry.

And finally, we want to say a special thank you to Kevin Blowe and Alfie Meadows.