HOME      NEWS      BACKGROUND      SUPPORT      PETITION    STATEMENT     MESSAGES    CONTACTS      LINKS

Background

I have no doubt that the treatment this family has received from the police and others in the criminal justice system is a sharp reflection of that meted out to my family... I would urge those who are concerned with supporting Surjit's family to help their campaign in whatever way they can... No family should be treated like this and nobody should be so viciously robbed of his life and his killers remain on the streets.                                                             

Neville Lawrence  

Surjit was attacked with a knife outside his girlfriend's house by three white men. The attackers were identified by Surjit's girlfriend and arrested, but only one of them originally stood trial. The accused had his charge reduced from murder to assault by alleging that the other two accused men had committed the murder. But they were not tried with him, nor called to give evidence. When found guilty of assault, the Crown never even asked for a sentence, and the accused walked free from the dock. The Chhokar Family Justice Campaign has argued repeatedly that this was not a simple assault, but a murder where a man had a baseball bat used on his skull before being stabbed repeatedly, losing a third of his blood in the space of a few minutes.

Eventually, after five long months of campaigning by the Chhokar Family Justice Campaign, two indictments for murder were served on the two remaining accused in July 1999. In November 2000 the family suffered greatly as the second trial of those accused of murdering Surjit collapsed.

Five Minutes after the verdict the Lord Advocate went on to announce that two inquiries were to be held behind closed doors: one to look into the prosecution decision making process leading up to and during the trials, and one to look into the treatment of the family throughout the trial process. This was unacceptable to the Chhokar family as any inquiry must truly be seen to be independent and held in public. The family would have had no right to disclosure of evidence. They would have had no right to representation at either inquiry, even though this would not have prejudiced the inquiry process. No lay advisors with experience of human rights abuses, nor with experience of investigation into racism cases, were appointed to either enquiry.

It was for these reasons that the CFJC appealed to supporters to boycott the latterly organised public session of the inquiry into the Crown's failure to liaise with the family following Surjit's murder. The family also used the occasion of the public session to make a public statement of their belief that both inquiries were compromised from the start. 

What is the Crown trying to hide? If the Chhokar Family's long struggle has indicated anything so far, it is the way the Crown withheld vital information, covered up for one another, and erected a wall of silence. It is clear that without freedom of information there is no accountability; without accountability, there is no justice. Can you imagine what the end result would have been if the Stephen Lawrence inquiry had been held behind closed doors, and the Lawrence family had had no rights or status in relation to that inquiry? It would have been a whitewash!

We say, if the Crown has nothing to hide, then they have nothing to fear from an independent  public inquiry.