What I intend to do is:


A)    Remind everyone about the incident and

B)     The manipulation of the press that followed.

C)    I will then Voice our dissatisfaction of what can best be described as a bungled investigation into Rogerís death and finally

D)    Express a few concerns we have as a family.


Leading up to approx. 9PM on 11 January 1999, everyone who saw Roger said he was fit and well.

We were told of a 999 call describing 1 naked man banging on a door.

As a result up to 8 policemen arrived, one of whom knew Roger. We were told they restrained him for about 3 minutes. Supposedly for his own safety, after all, we were told they went to help him.

He was then carried naked and limp to an awaiting police van. What exactly happened in the van on route to St Anns we do not know. Roger was carried from the van to a reception room in St Anns where the restraining by the policemen continued.

He collapsed whilst being restrained.

He was resuscitated, though still unconscious, was transferred to North Middlesex Hospital. He was then transferred to Whittington hospital and put on life support.

Roger was pronounced dead on the 18 January 1999.

Even when Roger was still on life support, the press was manipulated to portray negative images of him;

You see, when someone dies in custody and it is suspicious this is what usually happens.  Immediately, the press is used to blame the victim for their death.

There was Dr Patel, the Pathologist at St Pancras who briefed journalist after an

in-conclusive post mortem. This was against the rules and further more he mislead them. No opportunity was missed to demonise Roger.

We had the Times graphic descriptions and policemenís comments, which clearly must have come from the MET

As you know, following the incident, we had the investigation into Rogerís death

The Investigation

The Investigation was supervised by the Police Complaints Authority(PCA). It was carried out initially by officers from the Complaints Investigation Bureau (CIB) and then by Essex Police.

We have never been happy or satisfied with the CIB and Essex police investigations; we felt they were both biased against Roger the victim.


The initial CIB investigators job was to secure and preserve evidence, but that did not happen.  CIB came to the investigation with pre-conceived ideas they assumed Roger was Ďhighí on something - During a meeting he commented that Ďpeople donít feel the cold when they have taken somethingí. The final straw was the production of an illegal warrant to search Rogerís flat. They begun horse trading with us, the deal was he will not search Rogerís flat providing we let his have access to Rogerís medical Records.

In fact basic investigative procedures were ignored:

There was a failure to treat the incident as a crime and the area as a crime scene. (Vital evidence may have been lost - plastic bags collected outside Rogers flat has gone missing). Attempts were made to get rid of evidence; we were even offered Rogers clothes and belongings.

What we must remember is Rogerís case was pre, (and for the most part,) post The Steven Laurence Inquiry Report by Macpherson and Stevenís case collapsed due to the lack of evidence.

Rogerís investigation was being bungled from the start, before our very eyes. With hindsight, we wonder if this bungling was a deliberate act. Its so easy to use false perception as an excuse after the event.

Consequently we complained about CIBs actions.  This resulted in an investigation into CIBs conduct. They were replacement by Essex police, a neighbouring police force.

The investigation into CIBs conduct was performed by Essex police. Unsurprisingly it did not result in a prosecution by the CPS. 6 months later we are still waiting to know if the CIB officers concerned will be disciplined.

So along came Essex

We felt Essex was not much better, we remain dissatisfied

With comments like Ďwhatís so important about timingí during one of our early meetings, we wonder about the quality of the investigation.

We are unhappy with the way statements have been taken and the treatment of various witnesses. One family member had to lodge a complain to the PCA because she felt her words was being twisted to paint a negative picture of Roger.

Another was offered dinner as a prelude to an interview. An apology was later issued.

Interview procedures were not followed; one took place in a pub. One of the questions asked was, Ďdid Roger phone you because of your Ďpreviousí?í

Note: Those were from people we knew, what about the people we didnít know?

We felt the meetings with the PCA and Essex police were simply a PR exercise:

We were give snippets of information, but not the whole picture.

There was a general reluctance to confirm anything in writing in early meetings.

There was also an inability to explain why Essex police were not investigating the personal lives of the police, and what they were doing on and off duty preceding the incident. We must remember Roger did complain he was being harassed.

We soon realised the investigation was about Roger and that the PCA supervision appeared to be ineffective.

To crown it all, after the PCA issued an interim certificate saying they were satisfied with the investigation. Another investigation was immediately launched. This investigation looked into the disappearance of a page from an officerís notebook. We were led to believe, by the PCA and Essex police, all notebooks were under lock and key. Further more why has it taken so long to discover a page was missing?

How then could the PCA say the investigation was satisfactory?

Furthermore, the process did not investigate the officers, nor did it investigate their conduct or their actions.

We have to ask ourselves what is in the 7 volumes the PCA and Essex police have sent to the CPS? Is one IRB, multiplied 8 times, enough to fill 7 volumes of information and videotape?

For us the real issue has nothing

To do with mental health (no one said he was un-well) Nothing to do with Excited Delirium (pre-requisites present?) and it has nothing to do with cocaine (there was none, if there was, case shutÖ.) Its to do with restraint, its to do with continuous restraint, its to do with prolonged, relentless restraint (imagine having to resist about 5 people continuously). Sadly, the investigations did not focus on this issue.

We have Concerns about

the buck passing between the St Anns Trust and the police

From day 1 the police passed the buck to St Annís. St Anns response was, whilst the police restrained Roger, they St Anns, did things as quickly as they possible could.

The fact is:

Roger was restrained for 20 minutes in the presence of hospital staff.

We were told that a Dr was not able to assess him, because there were too many policemen about.

Basically, the hospital staff did not or maybe, were not allowed to take control of the situation on their premises.

Another concern we have is to do with disclosure. When our loved ones die in custody. The investigations are financed by the force the complaint is lodged against. In Rogerís case it was the MET. As a consequence, the MET owns every scrap of information collected. He who pays the piper plays the tune - springs to my mind.

We have concerns that the clothes Essex have in their possession, and supposedly collected outside Rogerís flat, was not the clothes Roger was reported to be wearing that night. What really happened that night? What was in the missing plastic bags?

So we await the CPS decision as to whether or not to prosecute any of the officers concerned. We must remember the CPS and the police have always worked hand in hand.

Will the CPS, do the right thing, and be impartial?

Bernard Renwick