The unanswered questions of the Stephen Lawrence case

The Stephen Lawrence case was described by the Crown Prosecution Service as the ‘most significant in a generation’ and at its conclusion many were left with the feeling of ‘a job well done’. It marked the end to a decade of campaigning, both in the media and by Lawrence’s parents. Few doubt that British society is better off without Dobson and Norris on its streets. But at what cost? Has justice been well served?

But many questions remained unanswered. In the case’s ten year history, ancient legal principles have been usurped, traditional assumptions about guilt and innocence appeared to be suspended, and evidence that many thought to be wildly prejudicial was used to prove the defendant’s guilt. This left some with the feeling that although the outcome of the trial might be desirable, the sacrifices made in order to secure the convictions may have been too great.

Most obviously, the prosecution of Dobson was only allowed to happen because the government had repealed double jeopardy, the ancient legal principle that a defendant could not be tried twice for the same offence, in the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The Lawrence case was a prescient illustration of the debate around the repeal. Some argued that where advances in technology allow for a new piece of information about the offence to come to light, the law must permit the information to go before the jury again in a new trial in order that it may make a fully informed decision about the case. But others countered that double jeopardy was an important safeguard, and by departing from it in hard cases, we were at risk of making bad laws.

Then take the presumption of innocence. Many celebrated the work of newspapers – in particular the Daily Mail - for keeping the case in the public eye and ensuring that pressure remained on the establishment to consider new approaches to obtaining a conviction. However some did express concerns that the accused had a right to be seen as innocent until proven guilty, and that the media attention that the case received was little more than a witch hunt.

Similarly, there is the evidence that was used to obtain the conviction. The jury were played videos from cameras secreted in Dobson’s home, which showed the defendants using racist language and acting out scenes of extreme violence. This was only allowed because of changes made in 2003 which made evidence of an accused’s ‘bad character’ admissible in a trial. But does the reintroduction of character evidence into English law mark a shift towards trying people on the basis of their personality rather than what they have actually done?

Other important questions remain regarding how the case shaped our thinking about race and class. Has the conviction marked an end to the institutional racism that the McPherson report identified following the botched investigation of the killing? Did this institutional racism exist in the first place? Many celebrated the contribution that campaigners around the Lawrence case made to anti-racism. But others pointed out that the way that the accused were discussed in the intervening ten years revealed prejudices about the white working class in England. Eltham, the predominantly working class community in South London where the accused lived, was referred to by commentators at the time as being ’like hell’ where ‘racism seeped from every pore’.  Was the case a victory for anti-racism? Or did it expose deep seated prejudices in the English establishment towards working class communities?

In the aftermath of the Lawrence case it is vital that these questions remain open to robust debate.

The Independent Online is partnering with the Battle of Ideas festival to present a series of guest blogs from festival speakers on the key questions of our time.

Luke Samuel is convenor of the London Legal Salon, which is hosting a public discussion which will attempt to look at the trends and social forces that influenced the Stephen Lawrence case’s development at 7.30pm on Tuesday 31 January. Attendance is free and open to all who are willing to think rigorously about the law and its role in politics and wider society. Details are here: http://londonlegalsalon.blogspot.com.

Recent Posts on Battle of Ideas

• 'Abortion industry': A slur on the women who support their choice
• Opera for the masses, by the masses?
• Twitter trolls and the Health Bill
• The bitter taste of sugar prohibition
• Welcome to the age of bespoke cultural identities