MarchLA_08_09 20/02/2015 09:03 Page 8
8
Legal Action Group annual lecture event
annual lecture
March 2015
The murder more than 20 years ago of 18-year-old Stephen
Lawrence marked the start of an unlikely and enduring
relationship between a young defence solicitor and a grieving
mother, who were both determined to get justice for her son.
Catherine Baksi reports
Side by side for Stephen
O
ne of the last times Imran Khan
and Doreen Lawrence shared a
platform was when they were both
honoured at the 2012 Legal Aid Lawyer of
the Year Awards. However, they were on
stage together again last month, for the
annual LAG lecture, this time in
conversation with Legal Action editor
Fiona Bawdon.
Bawdon said Lawrence was regarded
by many within the legal profession as ‘an
icon for justice’, and was ‘an inspiration
for legal aid lawyers to keep on doing
what they do, despite all the difficulties.’
She reminded the audience at London
South Bank University that, although
Khan is best known for the Lawrence
case, he is actually a defence solicitor, and
‘far more likely to be acting for an alleged
murderer than representing the family of
a murder victim’. She added that, despite
his high profile and the fact that he was
involved in ‘one of the seminal cases of
the age’, Khan faces exactly the same
day-to-day problems of trying to keep his
firm afloat and ‘worrying how he can pay
the bills, as every other defence solicitor in
the country’.
Lawrence and Khan acknowledged
that, despite making common cause over
justice for Stephen, they still disagree on a
great many things, including whether the
justice system is skewed in favour of
victims or defendants (Khan believes the
former; Lawrence the latter); the removal
of double jeopardy; and the principle of
joint enterprise.
Khan spoke candidly about his
experience in the Lawrence case, which
has come to define his career.
The failed private prosecution of three
suspects, Neil Acourt, Luke Knight and
Imran Khan and Doreen Lawrence in conversation with Legal Action editor Fiona Bawdon
Gary Dobson, in 1996 had been a searing
experience, he said – and not one he
wanted to repeat. ‘I take my hat off to
those lawyers who can prosecute and
defend, because you need a completely
different mentality to prosecute,’ he said.
As a defence lawyer, he said: ‘I’m very
aggressive, I make that absolutely plain,
I want to win my cases. I’m an incredibly
aggressive defender and I will do what it
takes to defend within the ethical
parameters.’
But, he said: ‘You can’t do that as a
prosecutor; you’re presenting the case on
behalf of the state. You are not seeking a
conviction, but that’s what I was trying to
do in the private prosecution. I will never
want to prosecute again because I know
what will happen is that I’ll want to win
at all costs. So the only lesson I’ve learnt is
never prosecute again.’
The six-week trial in 2011, which saw
Dobson and David Norris convicted of
Stephen’s murder, was naturally difficult
for Doreen and Khan, too, found himself
looking at the proceedings from a
changed perspective.
‘In the past, I’ve represented people
who’ve been charged with murder and
you know that in the back of the court the
mother of the victim is looking at you,
with eyes piercing, saying “how dare you
put my family through this.” And there
I’m sitting next to somebody who’s doing
the same thing, and I had to say to
Doreen, “Look, that’s the lawyer’s job –
MarchLA_08_09 20/02/2015 09:03 Page 9
March 2015
it’s not personal”.’
When Doreen questioned why the
defence barristers were allowed to lay into
prosecution witnesses, all he could do was
explain ‘that’s how the system works’.
Khan said that while, for Doreen, the
conviction of Dobson and Norris in
January 2012 had been about achieving
justice, for Khan himself, it was ‘redemption
for the failure of the private prosecution’.
He said: ‘To get that result, was in a
sense providing that partial justice and
redemption for me in relation to that
failure. So it was a very selfish thing.’ The
decision to bring the private prosecution
attracted strong criticism from some in
the profession at the time, who thought it
a serious error of judgment. Doreen
Lawrence stressed, however, that at no
stage had she blamed her lawyers when
the case collapsed, believing instead she
‘I take my hat off to lawyers
who can prosecute and
defend, because you need
a completely different
mentality to prosecute’
had been let down by a criminal justice
system stacked against her.
Khan admitted that however much of
an insight the Lawrence case has given
him into the plight of victim’s families, it
has not changed how he operates as a
defence solicitor.
‘I’ve got to do my job. The system is
what it is, and you’re not going to get
another case if you go soft on witnesses.’
Having looked at the process from both
sides now, he finds it difficult, but said:
‘You have to stand there, grit your teeth
and carry on. And I’ve done it on many
occasions.’
The trial and subsequent conviction of
Norris and Dobson was only possible
following the scrapping of the double
jeopardy rule – which prevented suspects
being tried twice for the same crime – and
because of advances in forensic science.
The removal of double jeopardy
presented a conundrum for Khan, the
defence lawyer, whose ‘natural gut
instinct’ told him it was ‘intrinsically
wrong’ for the law to be scrapped,
although he recognised that had it not
been changed, Doreen would not have got
justice for her son’s death. ‘I’ve got to live
with those contradictions.’
LegalAction Group annual lecture event
‘From my perspective the
perpetrators have all the rights
and that was very clear when
Stephen was killed.’
Responding, however, to a question
from the floor, he admitted that his
‘opposition is diminishing’ and that he
accepts there is an ‘increasingly strong
argument in favour’ of its abolition,
particularly in cases where there is
‘compelling’ forensic evidence.
Joint enterprise in another area where
Khan and his most famous client have
opposing views. According to Khan the
premise is ‘just so wrong’ and needs to
be changed.
‘I have been involved in so many cases
when 10 or 12 people are in the dock, all
facing a murder or robbery charge on the
basis of joint enterprise. And you know
that many of them didn’t do anything
that could be said to be an intention to
kill, and yet they’re there and they get
convicted on that basis,’ he said. While
Doreen wanted to see all present at her
‘I had to say to Doreen, “Look,
that's the defence lawyer's
job – it’s not personal”’
9
son’s killing in the dock.
Overall, Khan believes the criminal
justice process is ‘skewed in favour of the
victim’. During his career, he says he has
seen the defence lawyer’s job get harder.
Defendants, he said, ‘don’t get the rights
that they should have’, and it has become
‘much more difficult’ to get acquittals.
Rather than give rights to victims, he
said the Macpherson Inquiry into
Stephen’s death resulted in the
defendants’ rights being taken away.
Doreen’s point of view is different.
‘From my perspective the perpetrators
have all the rights and that was very clear
when Stephen was killed.’
Khan is on record as having said that if
another Stephen Lawrence case came
across his desk now, he would not be able
to take it on due to the impact of
successive legal aid cuts. Legal aid firms,
‘If the Lawrence case
came across his desk today,
cuts to legal aid mean
he would have to
turn it down’
he says, have been ‘decimated’. ‘It’s not
the profession that I came into,’ he says.
Though he would not want to deter
others from pursuing their ‘dreams and
passions’ and so would still recommend a
new generation of lawyers to go into what
he describes as an ‘incredible profession’.
But, he is concerned that that new
generation of lawyers is becoming less
diverse. Controversially and somewhat
reluctantly, he reckons the only way
to reverse this is through positive
discrimination to help under-represented
groups ‘step onto the first rung of
the ladder’.
Doreen is also concerned to ensure
increased diversity in the professions. The
Stephen Lawrence Trust, set up in his
memory to give bursaries to architectural
students, is being broadened to cover
the law.
She would like to be able to do more
and get more law firms involved, but to do
that, she says the trust needs to raise more
funds. ‘We can’t just sit back and allow
the legal profession to carry on the way it
is going at the moment,’ she said.
Photographs by Robert Aberman