APPENDIX 49
Memorandum submitted by JUSTICE FOR SURJIT
CAMPAIGN FOR EQUALITY, ACCOUNTABILITY &
JUSTICE
[xxx—Indicates Text has been removed]
INTRODUCTION
This document has been prepared by the
JUSTICE FOR SURJIT campaign, for the attention of the Home Affairs
Select Committee as part of its considerations on domestic violence
and honour killings. The document provides RECOMMENDATIONS &
important POINTS FOR ATTENTION in respect of official investigation
of cases and public sector action on honour killings in the UK.
xxx. The issues and recommendations presented below, are based
on the direct experiences of Surjit Athwal's family xxx. The core
message of this document is the "Improving official action
against domestic violence and honour killings, and organised overseas
killings of UK citizens".
CASE OF
SURJIT ATHWAL:
SUMMARY
xxx.
Over the course of Surjit's enduring
case (December 1998-July 2007), her blood family in England, conducted
an intense campaign with the support of Southall Black Sisters.
They engaged with police, MPs, the Foreign Office, the Foreign
Secretary Jack Straw, the Punjab Police, the national media; all
in a bid to secure a comprehensive process of investigation in
the UK and robust UK government representations for an equally
comprehensive investigation to be conducted in India by the Indian
authorities. The nine year experience of this ordeal, has elicited
many issues, lessons and questions about the adequacy and efficiency
of current procedures and practises, from UK Government, Foreign
Office, Home Office, UK Police to the Indian Government and its
associated departments and its police authorities.
Southall Black Sisters provided a key
role of support and advice to Surjit's blood family, in their
campaign for an enquiry on Surjit's case and during the legal
prosecution in 2007. The family of Surjit Athwal feels that, the
specialist advisory and advocacy work of such groups is an essential
resource to ethnic minority victims and their families.
Based on that definitive experience,
we make the following important points to this enquiry in respect
of improving official procedures and action xxx. The issues and
problems highlighted based on case by case experiences where these
have arisen. They do not suggest that, these are reflective of
all official action in all domestic violence and honour killing
cases. Equally, this does not imply that these issues and problems
are isolated and insignificant. They are cited in this document
as being of significant occurrence in the official handling of
homicide cases of UK resident South Asian (Indian, Pakistani and
Bangladeshi background) females.
POINTS FOR
ATTENTION & RECOMMENDATIONS
a) Recognition of the primary
fact that UK citizens, predominantly from South Asian communities
(eg Panjaabi, Pakistani, Kashmiri, Indian), are being targeted
for murder by fellow British citizens in the territories of India,
Pakistan and Bangladesh. That a substantial number of UK domestic
violence and honour killings are carried out in this way; given
its ease and difficulty of detection from the UK. That, such overseas
murders have the distinct advantage of being difficult to pin-down
in evidential terms, and even more difficult for UK authorities
to properly investigate (against a mixture of diplomatic, bureaucratic,
corruption, overseas governmental and policing co-operation difficulties).
That, these forms of overseas murders are being carried out on
UK citizens by fellow UK citizens, who instigate and instruct
persons to carry out the murders in Indian, Pakistan and Bangladesh
territories. Thus, making these murders tantamount to remote control
murders; carried out with ease and efficiency by paid persons
5,000 miles away. That, both perpetrators and victims are UK citizens;
and, that this is a form of practise increasingly coming to light,
with an estimated five UK cases reported each year. Many cases
don't receive publicity, and often don't reach levels of official
attention.
b) A significant number of
these cases are honour -driven murders, against young South Asian
females. These victims are lured abroad to India or Pakistan,
and are subjected to murder or attempted murder there. These types
of murder effectively represent remote control killings. These
murders are two-state in nature, organised in the UK and executed
in India, Pakistan or Bangladesh. There aren't the government
to government mechanisms in place to handle and facilitate official
investigations through police channels, into these two-state murders.
c) Following Surjit Athwal's
failure to return home (Hayes, west London) from her two week
visit to East Panjaab in December 1998, her family members' contacted
police stations in Hayes (west London) and Coventry (home of her
family). Front desk officers at both stations rejected attempts
to register Surjit as a missing person, with a strong risk of
her having been murdered. Officers at both stations said they
do not handle disappearances abroad, even of UK citizens. Only
after making direct contact with the Serious Crime Squad at Scotland
Yard, through an informal contact, was the case officially taken
up by the police. With the disinterested and unresponsive response
of the two local police stations, Surjit's family were left isolated
and unclear as to what to do next. This aspect of the case, demonstrated
the lack of a coherent and consistent network of systems and agencies
to deal with such UK cases—lost, disappeared or murdered
overseas.
d) During written communications
and the few meetings between Surjit's family and the Foreign Office
officials, there was no indication or direction from the latter
that they would liaise with the UK police and combine efforts
on the case. Again, no joined up thinking. In the absence of any
clear and comprehensive process, Surjit's family resorted to their
MP and the media to raise attention to this case.
e) A failure by police, CPS,
legal and other officials to recognise and appreciate the practise
of honour killing. A failure to accept that someone could be killed
for reasons of honour—as against a commonplace type of murder—leads
to a mental refusal to even acknowledge that such an incident
could even occur. This personal mental prejudicial, blocks a professional
and objective investigation.
f) Overseas murders make the
gathering of evidence difficult and frustrating, both for the
immediate families of the victim and for the UK police. Overseas
murders are a relatively easy and efficient form of killing, as
the evidence trail is weak and the channels of co-operation between
the investigative bodies of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh and
UK is riven with obstruction, delay and confusion. Sharing of
evidence and extradition applications are poorly handled; often
involving years of delay and confusion and final abandonment.
Perpetrators can often out-manoeuvre such a fragmented and inefficient
system.
g) Major gap in UK-India official
co-operation in terms of domestic violence and honour killings
and other forms of killings. No efficient and ready co-operation
between the investigative bodies of both states, due to a failure
by respective governments to create necessary co-operation and
environment for regularised and cohesive communication and collaboration.
Time-consuming and arcane bureaucracy; refusal of visas to UK
police; delays and inactivity by Interpol; failure by British
Foreign Office to press for co-operation; lack of responses from
Indian government departments; failure by Indian police to share
evidence. Characterised by inconsistency and fragmentation. All
this totals up to a massively delayed and skewed form of investigative
co-operation. A major absence of joined up investigative action;
which is often fatal to the successful resolution of the case.
This major gap, facilitates and encourages the perpetrators, and
contributes to a failure of justice. This fundamental failure
serves to help the perpetrator, and expose the potential victim
and undermine the subsequent anxious enquiries of the victims'
families.
h) UK police investigation
of honour killings needs to be streamlined and organised, based
on a coherent approach. Surjit's and other cases have revealed
a fundamental failure at initial and further key stages of investigation.
There has been a failure by lead officers to grasp the seriousness
about reported cases of persons "disappeared" abroad
in honour related circumstances (with the distinct possibility
of death). In a number of cases, including Surjit's, UK police
officers have displayed a lack of understanding of such types
of murders, and made cynical and dismissive comments when concerns
have been put to them by concerned relatives of the victim. This
does not inspire confidence in such an investigation (characterised
by negative attitudes). Investigating officers treat concerns
about the murder of a relative with extreme scepticism and fail
to pursue areas of investigation which are suggested by victims'
relatives based on the latter's' knowledge of the intricate circumstances.
Dismissive comments are sometimes made to concerned relatives.
In the case of Surjit Athwal, the initial lead investigation officer,
unilaterally declared to the media that whilst Surjit's whereabouts
were unknown, there was nothing to be worried about regards her
circumstances. This was whilst her family were desperately concerned
about her sudden "disappearance". Subsequent, officers
treated Surjit's "disappearance" as Surjit having left
the UK of her own volition. This self-determined position was
never communicated to Surjit's family, much less explained. For
many years, Surjit's case was kept at a "disappearance"
as against a "murder". It was changed to the latter
status, only when a new set of officers overtook the case in 2004,
under the leadership of DCI Clive Driscoll.
i) In July 2007, Surjit Athwals's
case came to the conclusion of a 13-week criminal prosecution
trial. xxx. Several years after her disappearance in December
1998, the changing Metropolitan Police teams had reached decisions
to close the case from active enquiries. It was re-opened in 2004,
under a new, fresh team of officers, led by DCI Clive Driscoll.
The enthusiasm and determination of this team, was to make the
whole case turn around from one lacking evidence to one that had
good evidence for criminal prosecution in English law. The positive
determined approach displayed by a new set of police officers,
made the fundamental difference in Surjit's case. Earlier police
investigations, from 1998 to 2003, had been characterised by:
slowness; failure to extract key evidence; a disproportionate
reliance on the suspects' version of events; and, a failure to
even treat the case as a murder and only a "disappearance".
j) A thorough and robust attitude
by official investigators and facilitators of investigation, at
both police level and Foreign Office level is necessary. In the
absence of that, cases are left adrift and left to stagnate and
freeze. Consequently, perpetrators go scot-free. A poor attitude
is demonstrated in a lack of push to investigate and open up channels
of communication and co-operation with counter-parts in India
and Pakistan. An initial poor attitude in Surjit Athwal's case
was replaced by a subsequent robust attitude in the Metropolitan
Police investigation, leading to a criminal prosecution eight
years after Surjit's disappearance and a conviction following
13-week trial. A huge contrast from the initial stagnation of
the case in a dead-end.
k) Similar to the need to
treat all complaints of racial violence sympathetically and seriously,
with due investigation; all cases of potential and actual domestic
violence and honour killing need to be treated with immediate
seriousness. This needs to be demonstrated in the immediate speed
and thoroughness of the investigation. Slowness and inactivity
gives confidence and opportunity to perpetrators to conceal and
destroy evidence— including the actual dead body xxx
l) A failure by police investigators
to rigorously question suspected persons and investigate details
about "disappearance", for reasons of subjective sensitivity
xxx Failure to conduct a comprehensive
range of enquiries and leaving important lines of investigative
exploration unaddressed. Failure to seize relevant evidence. Failure
to question relevant persons. Failure to move with speed on investigation.
An overall failure to demonstrate a serious approach to the issues
of the case; giving potential perpetrators confidence to give
half-truths and with hold important information.
m) Need for all cases of honour
killing to receive specialist attention from officers knowledged
and experienced in this special type of murder. xxx and other
cases, were characterised by a failure by ordinary police officers
to grasp the critical cultural aspects of the case; including
significant areas of cover-up and misinformation by the perpetrators
peculiar to a Panjaabi household setting and way of life. However,
although specialist knowledge may be needed in the investigation
of honour killings, these cases illustrate some very basic failures
of policing, for example, police officers not taking a missing
person report seriously.
n) UK police officers unwilling
to embrace cases of overseas murder, consisting of complex and
lengthy aspects of investigation. Honour killings abroad and other
remote control killings, are very different to a relatively simple
gang shooting or stabbing. Overseas killings have multiple layers
of evidential enquiry, compounded by commonplace beaureaucratic
and officialdom obstructions in UK-India or UK-Pakistani murder
investigations. Need for dedicated, specialist, knowledged approach
to these cases. Anything less undermines the investigation. In
Surjit's case, the lead investigation officer who brought the
case to successful prosecution, brought in a specialist Sikh officer
who had knowledge of all aspects of Panjaabi culture and associated
behaviour. This proved vitally beneficial to whole case; in contrast
to the previous predominantly all-white team of officers.
o) In achieving the prosecution
and conviction in the 13-week trial, in 2007, Surjit's family
nor the Metropolitan Police were in any part assisted by positive
input into the prosecution case by the Foreign & Commonwealth
Office. The FCO provided nothing to assist or further the UK police
investigation, nor the construction of the prosecution case by
the CPS. The FCO's representation of Surjit Athwal's case to the
Indian Government for investigation in India, was characterised
by prolonged inactivity, incomplete information, unfulfilled promises
by the Foreign Secretary to press the case with the Indian PM,
and general stagnation. Nor were requests by the Punjab Police
for extradition xxx, ever followed up by the UK government. Only
a single letter was written to the Ministry of External Affairs
from the British High Commission (New Delhi), after years of pressure
from Surjit's family. No attempt was made by the Foreign Secretary,
as senior Minister, to represent the case to the Indian Government,
on par with other British cases raised by him with India, such
as Ian Stillman and Peter Bleach. Furthermore, the murder cases
of two British females, Lucy Blackman in and Kirsty Jones in Thailand
received very senior representation from the British PM and Foreign
Secretary. To date, no such effort has been made for any case
of a South Asian, Arabic, Kurdish or other ethnic minority British
female victim. Overall, the Foreign Office has demonstrated a
failure to act in a timely, consistent and even manner, in Surjit
Athwal's case. This is a pattern evident in other like cases,
including the current live case of British female Manjit Kular.
Together, this highlights the racially discriminatory way the
Government deals with cases of Asian and minority ethnic females
killed or at risk abroad. These obvious inequality and double-standards,
is unjust—morally and legally. The performance of the British
government and Foreign Office on the current live case of British
female Manjit Kular, who suffered a suspicious death in Panjaab
(India) in October 2007, will be an important demonstration of
whether government practise has improved.
p) Together, the above issues
point to a pervasive state of institutionalised racism in the
quality of official response and investigation of these cases.
Institutional racism being: "The collective failure of an
organisation to provide an appropriate and professional service
to people because of their colour, culture or ethnic origin. It
can be seen or detected in processes, attitudes and behaviour
which amount to discrimination through unwitting prejudice, ignorance,
thoughtlessness and racist stereotyping which disadvantages minority
ethnic people." Machpherson Report into Stephen Lawrence
Inquiry, 1999
q) Need for UK government
to give honour killings, and domestic murders within minority
communities, a public importance. Rising number of reported cases
demonstrates the existence of these largely concealed and suppressed
murder crimes. Communities (eg Kurdish, Sikh, Panjaabi, Kashmiri,
Iranian, Bangladeshi, Pakistani, Gujerati) which are affected
by these killings need to be able to draw upon official senior
level support in reporting these cases. They need to be confident
that the reported cases will be treated with seriousness and actioned
robustly. For four decades, honour violence and murder has remained
successfully hidden and contained within Panjaabi, Kashmiri, Gujerati,
Indian and Pakistani communities residing in the UK. Many cases
of clear female murder in the UK or suspicious disappearance abroad,
have gone unaddressed by police and legal justice due to a failure
by communities to access reporting and investigative channels
and a general fear of reprisal if reported; coupled with a failure
by police officers to understand honour related violence and murder.
This fear factor particularly affects females, who are invariably
the greatest all-round victims in domestic and honour violence
and murder and all that surrounds its—fear, silence, reprisal,
threats, blackmail and compelling issues of shame and honour in
the community. Victims and victims' families feel silenced, isolated
and despondent; resulting in very high incidence of physical self-harm
and actual suicides amongst South Asian females in the UK.
r) Government and public bodies
like the police, need to work in partnership with black and minority
ethnic women's groups and community groups (eg Panjaabi, Sikh,
Kashmiri, Gujerati, Kurdish, Iranian) and specialist victim advocacy
bodies like Southall Black Sisters, Iranian & Kurdish Womens
Rights Organisation, Karma Nirvana, Henna Foundation and Middle
East Centre for Womens Rights to create a public awareness and
confidence in speaking up against domestic violence and honour
related violence, helping victims report and escape abuse and
supporting police investigations into actual cases. In particular,
long established groups like Southall Black Sisters need to be
fully funded to provide these critically important services. Experience
shows that, such specialist womens advocacy groups are the most
well informed and trained bodies to assist and advocate on behalf
of South Asian, Arabic, Kurdish and minority ethnic women; in
an effective and committed manner.
19 February 2008
|
