I intend to do is:
Remind everyone about the incident and
The manipulation of the press that followed.
I will then Voice our dissatisfaction of what can best be described as a bungled
investigation into Rogerís death and finally
Express a few concerns we have as a family.
up to approx. 9PM on 11 January 1999, everyone who saw Roger said he was fit and
were told of a 999 call describing 1 naked man banging on a door.
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.
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.
collapsed whilst being restrained.
was resuscitated, though still unconscious, was transferred to North Middlesex
Hospital. He was then transferred to Whittington hospital and put on life
was pronounced dead on the 18 January 1999.
when Roger was still on life support, the press was manipulated to portray
negative images of him;
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.
was Dr Patel, the Pathologist at St Pancras who briefed journalist after an
post mortem. This was against the rules and further more he mislead them. No
opportunity was missed to demonise Roger.
had the Times graphic descriptions and policemenís comments, which clearly
must have come from the MET
you know, following the incident, we had the investigation into Rogerís death
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.
have never been happy or satisfied with the CIB and Essex police investigations;
we felt they were both biased against Roger the victim.
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.
fact basic investigative procedures were ignored:
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.
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.
we complained about CIBs actions. This
resulted in an investigation into CIBs conduct. They were replacement by Essex
police, a neighbouring police force.
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.
along came Essex
felt Essex was not much better, we remain dissatisfied
comments like Ďwhatís so important about timingí during one of our early
meetings, we wonder about the quality of the investigation.
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.
was offered dinner as a prelude to an interview. An
apology was later issued.
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
Those were from people we knew, what about the people we didnít know?
felt the meetings with the PCA and Essex police were simply a PR exercise:
were give snippets of information, but not the whole picture.
was a general reluctance to confirm anything in writing in early meetings.
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.
soon realised the investigation was about Roger and that the PCA supervision
appeared to be ineffective.
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?
then could the PCA say the investigation was satisfactory?
the process did not investigate the officers, nor did it investigate their
conduct or their actions.
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?
us the real issue has nothing
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
have Concerns about
buck passing between the St Anns Trust and the police
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
was restrained for 20 minutes in the presence of hospital staff.
were told that a Dr was not able to assess him, because there were too many
the hospital staff did not or maybe, were not allowed to take control of the
situation on their premises.
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
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?
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
the CPS, do the right thing, and be impartial?