Home / Challenging oppressive policing

Challenging oppressive policing

Background

For the black community in the late 20th century, one of the most pertinent issues in British society was that of racial bias in the criminal justice system. . For young Black people, especially those living in inner city working-class communities , confrontations with the police were an almost daily occurrence. Bernie Grant, both as leader of Haringey Council from 1985, and then MP for Tottenham from 1987 until his passing in 2000, took up this problem of racial bias in policing, and in the criminal justice system more widely, as an issue of the highest importance. It was his constituency of Tottenham that served as one of the focal points of oppressive policing, and community resistance to it, during this time. Bernie Grant was renowned for challenging state racism, and defending people and communities affected by it. But he was also part of a wider network of concerned activists and community leaders who spoke up for young Black people and working-class communities when the police seemed immune to accountability. 

The notorious use of stop and search or ‘SUS’ powers, is but one example of how policing blighted the lives of many, as it was used disproportionately and unjustifiably against black citizens, young and old. Racism was evident too in too many incidences when Black people were themselves victims of the most extreme crimes. There were numerous cases in which black citizens were restrained, sectioned, or died at the hands of police in disproportionate numbers. In some cases these were themselves victims. There is evidence that the numbers to be “stopped and searched” became an operational target in some police forces. One of the most notorious examples of this was during ‘Operation Swamp’ which was carried out by police in Lambeth in 1981, in which officers were commanded to attempt to stop and search 1,000 people per day.

Given the lived experience of policing by the black community, it was perhaps inevitable that an elected politician needed to see this as high priority, and therefore as a councillor and later as an MP Bernie Grant quickly became a leading voice articulating the sense of injustice widely felt on behalf of both of his constituents and minoritised communities far beyond.

When years of racist policing caused major civil unrest in his Tottenham constituency in 1985, Grant became a magnet for the wider concerns around institutionalised racism in criminal justice system. He was sought after as champion by a now flourishing network of activists and campaigners determined to bring about change, and used the channels and attention afforded to him as an MP to challenge injustice.

Broadwater Farm 1985 Uprising

On 6th October 1985, the Broadwater Farm estate in Tottenham was the scene of a major youth rebellion, sparked by young people’s frustration and anger at police violence. As in other civil uprisings, the ‘85 Uprising was triggered by a specific incident. On 5th October, Cynthia Jarrett, a 49-year-old local mother, suffered a fatal heart attack when her home was raided by police officers. Around 5 hours before this raid took place, her son Floyd Jarrett had been falsely arrested for a ‘suspicious’ car tax disc, and charged with theft and assault. He was later acquitted of all charges. Far from being isolated incidents, Mrs Jarrett’s death and her son Floyd’s wrongful arrest symbolised levels of harassment which had become commonplace experiences for residents of Broadwater Farm and the surrounding areas. When news spread of Mrs Jarrett’s death, members of the local community were outraged, and young people felt they couldn’t take any more. They took to the streets to physically challenge the police behaviour. This led to the most serious riots ever in mainland Britain in which a policeman, PC Blakelock was stabbed to death. It’s important to note that just 7 days prior to the uprising at Broadwater Farm, Brixton had similarly erupted after the police shooting of Cherry Groce. Ms Groce was a local Black mother who was shot by police and paralyzed from the chest down, during a raid on her home where three of her children were present. As they would then do at Broadwater Farm, young people in Brixton took to the streets in anger against police brutality. In the space of just one week, two Black mothers and their families had been victims of police violence in London, pushing local young people to react. Alongside these events in London, Handsworth in Birmingham had been the centre of an uprising against police harassment, between the 9th-11th September. Just several years prior in 1981, there had been widespread rioting in Brixton, Bristol, Toxteth, Moss Side and Chapel Town all as a result of rampant police harassment. The Broadwater Farm Uprising was therefore part of a wider pattern of resistance toward incessant, oppressive policing in inner city, predominantly Black communities and working-class areas. As organisers of a march in memory of Cynthia Jarrett and Cherry Groce asserted, the situation was “out of control, out of order. One law for black, one for blue”. 

Reflective of this national context, insofar as the local situation was concerned, the problems which faced Broadwater Farm estate went much further back than 1985, and were broader than just oppressive policing. Broadwater Farm represented the general neglect of inner-city neighbourhoods by the state in the postwar period. Originally opened in 1970, the conditions on the estate were already inadequate by the mid-1970s. Unfair housing allocations policies are believed to have resulted in highly concentrated communities of disadvantaged residents with no other choice but to accept housing here. The poor conditions experienced by residents led to frustration and tensions within the community. Increased instances of burglary, vandalism, and displays of racism including the appearance of swastikas, led to increased police presence.

But the methods deployed by the police, which were overtly confrontational, only hastened the deterioration of the relationship between the residents and police force. Not only that, but the reputation of the estate led to residents being discriminated against. One newspaper reported on the links between the estate’s flawed design and social problems, pointing to instances wherein residents had trouble gaining employment or even renting a coloured television due to their home addresses. The 1985 Uprising was not the first time that residents of the Farm, and local community, sought to assert their rights and challenge their oppressed conditions. The Farm was host to various projects, including the Broadwater Farm Tenants Association, Broadwater Farm Youth Association and Co-Operative. Haringey Council had, in addition to these community-run groups, highlighted the systemic problems present on the Farm and had invested in various initiatives and repair projects to mitigate the negative conditions. These entities were all aware of the root causes of the problems on the estate, and the less than helpful attitudes of the police. The Youth Association, for example, expressed that it was common knowledge that Tottenham Police Station had maps of the estate, with markings showing how, “should anything happen, they will take the estate”. Young people also reported that police officers had made attempts for several years to spread rumours of an impending riot every summer, despite there being no historic precedent for such an event on the Farm. 

During the course of the Broadwater Farm Uprising, approximately 500 young people filled the estate and clashed with police. Police Officer Keith Blakelock was killed, in what remains an unsolved murder. This tragic outcome of the Uprising contributed to the extremely biased and heavily racist press coverage that the event garnered. From the beginning of the investigation into Blakelock’s murder, it was clear that all usual rules regarding police conduct were abandoned, and, as is documented in various sources, there followed gross abuse of civil rights. This led to the arrest of numerous young Black men and boys, one as young as 12 years old, in the days that followed. It was soon revealed that some of the young people arrested were held for a total of 5 days before being either charged or released, others had their clothes taken away and were left without shoes, and minors were denied access to their parents, a social worker or adult to act in their interests during questioning. However, since the PACE Act was passed in 1984, police were not permitted by law to detain people more than 24 hours without charge or releasing them on bail. Thirteen year old , Jason Hill, was arrested alongside his entire family during a dawn raid on his family home. He was detained for three days, denied access to an adult representative, interrogated in just his underwear and a blanket, and forced to make a false confession. The officer in charge of the investigation, DCS Melvin, was disciplined a mere five years after the events in 1990. 

Bernie Grant had been elected leader of Haringey Council in that same year as the uprising took place, making him the first ever  Black council leader in Europe For some years prior to this however he had worked with residents on the estate, as its local councillor, to resolve its problems. Unsurprisingly therefore, Grant was the central spokesperson for Broadwater Farm residents at this time of heightened media attention and scrutiny. In the immediate aftermath of the uprising  he  was intentionally taken out of context by the press eager to vilify him. It was reported that he’d said “The police were to blame for what happened on Sunday night and what they got was a bloody good hiding”. What he had actually said was that “the youth think they gave the police a bloody good hiding”, in an attempt to convey the views of the young people who had risen up in anger at ceaseless police harassment.

This misquote would follow Grant for the rest of his political career, and whilst it led to his demonisation in the mainstream media, it had the reverse effect amongst minoritised communities with lived experience of unjust policing. Grant’s own constituents, anti-racist groups and members of the general public, supported his advocacy for his community, for victims of police brutality, and young people. For instance, Principal Race Relations Advisor for the Greater London Council, Ansel Wong, wrote to express his support for Grant: “We condemn the way you have been attacked in the press and media and within the Labour Party hierarchy. We admire your courage and hope you will continue to take your principled stand which is to your credit”. Similarly, the Labour Party’s Black Sections voiced its support for both Grant and young Black people who were being scapegoated as responsible for the events: “We applaud the way Bernie has resolutely defended the community he represents as an elected official, particularly Black youth on the Broadwater Farm Estate. What Bernie had done is to truly reflect the views of the section of the community – Black people – whose oppression at the hands of Thatcher’s uncaring and repressive state is the root cause of the uprisings”. Black Sections also pointed out the lack of support Grant received from members of his own party during this time. Shortly after, on October 14th, Grant spoke at a special meeting of Haringey Council, and confirmed the council’s position on the events that had unfolded, sending condolences to the families of Cynthia Jarrett and PC Blakelock, and denouncing the police violence, the government’s indifference and the public disorder. The council demanded a series of actions, which included the immediate reduction of excessive police presence, an independent public inquiry into Cynthia Jarrett’s death, the suspension of all officers involved in the raid on her home, government compensation for those residents affected by the events, the cessation of the use of CS gas and plastic bullets by police, and an urgent meeting with the Home Secretary Douglas Hurd and Shadow Home Secretary Gerald Kaufman. In the event that the government failed to initiate such an inquiry, and therefore the council asserted that it would itself organise one. The Haringey Community Relations Council, the local body responsible for improving community relations,  similarly called for an independent public inquiry, and also highlighted concern over the continued police presence and threat of violent policing methods in the aftermath of the riot, stating “violence breeds violence”.

What these council and community bodies argued, is that the issue was not simply identifying or analysing the deep-rooted problems facing inner city communities, but correcting the failures by the government, implementing positive changes to address them, and immediately ending all actions by the police that only exacerbated the broken relationship with the local community. The Home Secretary initially refused calls for a public inquiry, on the basis that the Scarman Report, which was published as a result of the 1981 Brixton riots, had already outlined the root causes of such ‘disorders’. 

Broadwater Farm Inquiry

After repeated calls for an independent inquiry were denied, Grant set up one funded by the Council itself. The Broadwater Farm Inquiry was set up in March 1986, chaired by the then Lord Gifford QC. Members of the Inquiry team included Rev. Bishop Philip Harvey, Rev. Canon Sebastion Charles, Dorothy Kuya, Paul Corrigan, and Randolph Prime. These individuals were selected by the council due to their understanding of the societal issues that the uprising highlighted. The objective of the inquiry was laid out as follows: 

“To inquire into and report on the disturbances on Broadwater Farm… and in particular to consider:

  1. Social and economic conditions within the London Borough of Haringey;
  2. The policing of the area before and after the disturbances
  3. The racial and other aspects of the relationship between the police and residents of the area
  4. The role of the relevant statutory and voluntary agencies concerned with policing and community relations. 

And to make recommendations”

As chair, Lord Gifford requested evidence from various relevant bodies, including the Police Liaison Committee, Haringey Council, and members of the local community. However, due to the Home Secretary’s aforementioned reluctance for such an inquiry, the delay in eventually setting it up had an impact on its findings, as the report stated: “by the time we began our work, memories had faded and some of the impact which the Inquiry could have had was lost”. There was also a climate of fear that existed within the local community, due to the lack of trust felt toward the police after the immense number of arrests made in conjunction with the riots. Although the inquiry involved a confidential process, many people felt they couldn’t contribute their perspectives without consequence. Alongside this, the Police Commissioner also refused to provide evidence to the inquiry, severely limiting the available material that the team could glean from. The media coverage of the uprisings proved an invaluable resource for exposing how racism manifested in British society. As part of the Inquiry process, Dorothy Kuya famously drew up an analysis entitled ‘The Broadwater Farm Disturbances and the Press’, which, through diligent studies of various different newspapers, outlined how racism had skewed the events and fuelled the racist stereotypes suffered by young Black people, and indeed Bernie Grant: “He is now ‘Barmy Bernie who must be disowned’… The new bogeys are the English born Black Youth… They have been characterised as ‘muggers’, ‘rapists’ ‘lazy’ ‘drug pedlars’ and ‘drug takers’ and worst of all ‘murderers’”.

In 1987, Judge Margaret Burnham and Professor Lennox Hinds, both seasoned US legal professionals, published the ‘Burnham Report of International Jurists in Respect to Broadwater Farm Trials’, the report proved a damning assessment of oppressive arrest and detainment procedures, and exposed the various levels of failure and human rights abuses present in the investigation into the murder of PC Keith Blakelock.

The Tottenham Three and the Broadwater Farm Defence Campaign

As a result of the swathe of arrests of local young people in the aftermath of the Uprising, three adults and three minors were charged with the murder of PC Blakelock. The three minors were eventually acquitted, however the  adults : Winston Silcott, Engin Raghip and Mark Braithwaite, were charged and found guilty in 1987, based on uncorroborated witness statements and coerced confessions. They became known as the ‘Tottenham Three’. Throughout the trial and after the Tottenham Three’s convictions, the local community mobilised in their defence. Grant contributed to the Broadwater Farm Defence Campaign. In March 1987, shortly after the conviction of the Three, the Campaign organised a picket, labelling the trial a “mock trial” that Britain “slept through”. The Tottenham Three Families Campaign was organised by the families of the wrongfully convicted men – namely Sharon Raghip, wife of Engin Raghip – in July 1990 with the aim of “the release and exoneration of the Tottenham Three”, and the two groups worked in tandem with each other to fight for justice. Alike to reportage of the Uprising itself, media outlets were quick to vilify the three men, and in particular Winston Silcott, who was portrayed as the ringleader of Blakelock’s killing despite no credible evidence that he was present on the Farm at the time. Grant regularly challenged the media’s irresponsible portrayal of Silcott. In December 1989, he wrote to the Royal Courts of Justice to bring attention to an alleged contempt of court by the Sun newspaper for an article published in January 1985, on the second day of the murder trial, which identified Silcott as the person police believed to be the ringleader of the entire uprising. 

The media portrayal of the trial and the convicted men was exposed by  the Channel Four’s Hard News documentary programme and heavily scrutinised for extreme racism, falsifications and character assassination. Silcott’s family, in particular his parents, worked tirelessly for justice for him. They were also subjected to police intimidation and harassment, as the Broadwater Farm Defence Campaign once reported: “Tottenham police have been out to get Winston for a very long time. In 1986, officers from that station told his mother, Mary: “if so much as a pin drops in Tottenham, we’ll have Winston for it”. After Silcott was charged and imprisoned, his younger brother George was regularly targeted by local police, being routinely arrested and charged for crimes he didn’t commit. The police sought further revenge on the Farm, conducting ‘Operation Kingflop’ in October 1989, in which the estate was raided by police under orders to search and detain people between 15-30. During the course of this Operation, members of the Broadwater Farm Defence Committee were arrested, and their offices raided. The Defence Campaign kept the public informed with regular newsletters and press statements on the continual harassment post-uprising and murder trial. 


Broadwater Farm and The Tottenham Three received support both nationally and internationally. After Operation Kingflop, the British Council of Churches visited the estate, met with local organisations and announced its support for the community. US Civil Rights icon, politician and friend to Grant, Jesse Jackson, voiced his concern over the convictions in April 1990, drawing parallels to other famous cases: “We should remember that Nelson Mandela was also convicted by a jury in his country, and that the international community has since decided that the verdict was wrong”. The families of the Tottenham Three, local community, Grant, and other public figures, continued to campaign for justice despite many obstacles. In December 1988 the men were denied the right to appeal, and only in 1991 were their cases referred back to the Court of Appeal, after it was proven that both Raghip and Braithwaite could not have been involved in Blakelock’s murder, and indeed Raghip’s IQ and illiteracy meant his statement was easily manipulated by investigating officers. The case of the Tottenham Three highlighted much broader issues in policing, including human rights abuses during questioning, safeguarding for suspects, the role of the media and racism in trials, lack of police accountability, and the need to end the use of uncorroborated confessions. On 25th November 1991, the Tottenham Three’s convictions were eventually quashed. This result was in large part due to the campaigning efforts and the families’ unwavering struggle for justice. The case of the Tottenham Three therefore not only exposed the deeply embedded racism, and indeed corruption, in the criminal justice system, but also demonstrated the significance of community organising during this period.

Joy Gardner and deportations

Joy Gardner (1953 – 1 August 1993) was a Jamaican-born mature student and mother living with her 5-year-old son in Crouch End, North London. Gardner first arrived in the UK in 1986 to join her mother, Myrna Simpson, a British citizen. Prior to 1981, Gardner would have had the right to British Citizenship through her mother, but the 1981 British Nationality Act meant this was no longer possible. In October 1990, she was informed by police and the Home Office that she should leave the country voluntarily, or would be at risk of deportation. She had come to Bernie Grant seeking support in her quest to remain, as she went through appeals processes, and was waiting to hear back on an appeal when she was killed. On the morning of 28th July 1993, a team of police officers and an immigration officer raided her home in an attempt to deport her and her son that same day. But Joy, taken completely by surprise, had no idea the decision to deport her had been taken. As far as she knew she was still awaiting a Home Office reply to her solicitor’s application for a deportation order to be rescinded. In fact, her solicitor only received a letter later that morning after the raid had taken place, which confirmed that Joy’s plea had been rejected. It was later admitted by the then Immigration  insiter Charles Wardle that this was a deliberate ploy to avoid any further appeals being lodged.  

In the presence of her son, the officers put a leather belt around her body, and taped her legs and mouth to restrain her. She collapsed as a result, was brain dead and officially died in hospital three days later from cerebral hypoxia and heart failure. Immediately after her collapse and admission to hospital, her mother, the local community, human rights activists and organisations expressed their outrage at the treatment of Joy by the police and immigration, and demanded an investigation into the methods of restraint used. Bernie Grant and his office had known of Joy since 1990, as she had come to him for help with housing and immigration issues. At around 11.30am, several hours after she had collapsed, Grant was informed by the local police commander that she’d suffered a heart attack after officers arrived at her home. In his capacity as MP, from as early as the day Joy’s death was declared, Grant petitioned then-Home Secretary Michael Howard and Metropolitan Police Commissioner Paul Condon for a public inquiry, transparency around the internal police investigation, and questioned if the officers involved were to be suspended. The case received considerable national publicity, On 3rd August, in an unprecedented move, Metropolitan  Police Commissioner Paul Condon invited Bernie Grant to Scotland Yard, aware no doubt of the anger in the black community. He informed Grant three officers involved had been suspended. During this meeting, more details were confirmed, including the officers’ use of a body belt and restraints. It is possible that Joy’s death could have sparked another uprising similar to that of 1985, but the quick suspension of the three officers helped to avoid this, as did the role that Bernie Grant played in articulating the indignation of the community about the both immigration policies and brutal police practices.  

As with the 1985 uprising, activists, family members and members of the local community had quickly organised a campaign. The Joy Gardner Fund was set up with the help of Bernie Grant, to finance campaigning efforts, pay for her funeral and provide general support for the family. The Joy Gardner Campaign was officially established with the aim of holding those responsible for her death to account, campaigning for an end to inhumane restraining and deportation practices, and challenging racist and discriminatory immigration laws. The campaign also demanded a public inquiry – a demand which has never been met. In January 1994, an internal review of the Specialist Deportation Squad by the Home Office found that the methods of restraint which led to Joy’s death had been used on six other occasions in the years 1992-1994. In a statement in February 1994, Grant and Mrs Simpson asserted that Joy’s death “symbolises all that is wrong with British immigration policy and practice, and that it must not be forgotten”. To that end, Joy’s case led to the exposure of similar inhumane deportation actions. One such case was reported by the Observer in January 1994, wherein immigration officials targeted a flight from Jamaica to Gatwick Airport, detaining 190 passengers. Another case, publicised by the National Union of Refugee Organisations in August 1993 just days after Joy’s death, saw a Ugandan asylum seeker detained in a prison cell – transported to a detention centre only after protests were made against the police – and deported back to Uganda where he faced possible torture and death. After widespread concern was expressed about the case, charges were eventually brought against officials involved but none were eventually found guilty, leaving the impression that “Justice for Joy” has never been achieved. The fateful case of Joy Gardner was therefore symbolic of the immigration and deportation policies that disproportionately affected Black people in Britain, two decades before the ‘Windrush Scandal’ was exposed. Joy’s mother Myrna Simpson continues to campaign for justice for her daughter and others affected by inhumane deportation methods, over 30 years on.

Rolan Adams and Stephen Lawrence

In February 1991, Rolan Adams, a 15-year old Black British boy, was murdered in a racist hate crime. At the time of his murder, his local area of Thamesmead, South London, was an area heavily influenced by racist and fascist movements, and was in close proximity to the national headquarters of the far-right British Nationalist Party (BNP). Through years of dedicated activism around issues of racism in Britain and his reputation as the ‘voice’ of Britain’s Black communities, Bernie Grant was approached by Rolan’s family for help with their campaign for justice. However, as too often parliamentary protocols meant that it was not always possible for Grant to be involved in cases in other constituencies, as such issues required dealing with by designated local MPs. Grant therefore had to tread s fine line in his involvement, although he often felt compelled to break the rules. This predicament highlighted a key issue which Grant faced throughout his career, as one of only a small number of elected politicians who seriously took up issues of racism, he was therefore inundated with cases throughout the country.

This problem was brought up during a meeting between Grant and Rolan’s family in May 1991: “the real goal should be to pressurise the 646 white MPs who ought to be representing their black constituents”. Despite constraints of time and resources, Grant supported the campaign for justice for Rolan’s family and victims of racism more generally during this time. Rolan’s murder was raised in Parliament over the course of the year, and an Early Day Motion was tabled on 16th February 1993, sponsored by Diane Abbott MP, and supported by Grant and 76 others. In the aftermath of his murder, Rolan’s parents worked closely with the Anti-Racist Alliance in its work to combat racial violence. 

Alongside Rolan Adams, the racist murder of Stephen Lawrence in April 1993 was another infamous event of the 1990s which highlighted the prevalence of racist and fascist ideologies, their influence on young people in particular areas of London, and the attitude of indifference toward racist crimes by the police. Alike to Rolan Adams, Stephen Lawrence was murdered by a group of young white men this time in Plumstead, South East London – an area heavily influenced by the racist rhetoric of the BNP and other far-right groups. As has become well known, Stephen Lawrence’s parents, in particular his mother Doreen Lawrence, launched a far reaching and impactful campaign against racial injustice which continues to this day. Their campaigning work highlights the complexities of organising a social justice campaign, working in tandem with other like-minded organisations, and maintaining autonomy from larger groups. In September 1994, the Stephen Lawrence campaign published an open letter condemning the attempted co-option of their campaign and Stephen Lawrence’s name by the Anti-Racist Alliance. An outcome of the Stephen Lawrence case was the Stephen Lawrence enquiry chaired by Sir William Macpherson, which published what is referred to by some as the “Macpherson Report”, in 1999. This report famously described the Metropolitan Police as “institutionally racist” and helped to popularise this term, although it had been used previously by Bernie Grant and his affiliated projects. The Macpherson Report identified stop and search figures as one of the primary indicators of the presence of institutional racism. 

Roger Sylvester, Ibrahima Sey and Black deaths in custody

On the 11th January 1999, Roger Sylvester, a Black Tottenham resident who suffered from bipolar disorder, was detained by police outside his home during a mental health crisis. After being taken to St Anne’s Hospital in Haringey, he was restrained by 6 police officers during a medical assessment. He fell into a coma as a result, and died 8 days later on 19th January. As a press statement by Haringey Race Equality Council detailed, Sylvester’s death was part of a pattern of deaths of black people after police contact, and was connected to the deaths of Cynthia Jarrett, Joy Gardner, and at a broader level the murder of Stephen Lawrence. His family and local community soon organised the Roger Sylvester Justice Campaign, demanding the suspension and prosecution of the officers involved in his death, a public inquiry, and legal aid. As his local MP Bernie Grant was active in the struggle for justice. Paul Boateng, who was first elected to Parliament in 1987 alongside Grant as one of the three first Black MPs, also voiced his support for justice. From the outset of the investigation into Sylvester’s death, his family members, Grant and others raised concerns about the way it was conducted. These concerns included information leaks from the police to the press, and details of the post-mortem were being shared before it had even been completed. Pathologist Freddy Patel was later reprimanded by the General Medical Council after it was revealed he’d released medical details about Sylvester to the press. An inquest in 2003 found that Sylvester had died from serious brain damage and cardiac arrest as a result of being restrained. Despite passing a verdict of unlawful killing, the officers involved successfully overturned it in 2004. 


On 16th March 1996, Ibrahima Sey, 29-year old Gambian asylum seeker and father of two, died in police custody. He had been arrested after a domestic dispute in his home, and taken to Forest Gate police station, where he was restrained and put in handcuffs. His friend who accompanied him to the station recalled that: “When we arrived at the police station we were talking peacefully when police grabbed him by his neck and legs and turned him on his stomach. Three times he said to me, ‘Do you see what they are doing to me?’”. In the aftermath of his death, and before these details had been revealed by an inquest, Bernie Grant called for video cameras to be installed in police vans, yards, cells and charge rooms, stating: “had there been video cameras in the police van and yard, we might have had a chance of finding out what happened to Mr Sey”. Grant also called for the suspension of the officers involved, a demand that was shared with the family who launched a justice campaign. An inquest into his death a year later confirmed that he had been sprayed with CS gas while handcuffed on his knees and surrounded by over 12 police officers. After being sprayed, he was then restrained face down on the floor for over 15 minutes before he stopped breathing. The jury at this inquest delivered a verdict of unlawful killing. 

Stop and search and racist profiling

From the 1970s onwards, what was commonly referred to as the ‘sus’ law, which was based on Section 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824, permitted police officers to stop, search and arrest individuals they deemed ‘suspicious persons’. This police power was quickly abused to target young Black people at extremely disproportionate rates. After the Brixton Uprising in 1981, and similar uprisings around the country that same year, the Scarman Report concluded that these unrests were largely due to anger and resentment at the use of the ‘sus’ law.  The Scarman Report recommended that it be replaced with new stop and search legislation. This was introduced in 1984 with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE), which repealed the former ‘sus’ laws and introduced the power to stop and search people with “reasonable grounds”. Despite this reform in the law, the abuse of stop and search as a police power continued and still affected young Black people at disproportionate rates. The borough of Haringey, and Tottenham in particular, was a hotbed for this form of police harassment. Throughout his political career, Bernie Grant took up this issue of stop and search, and pressed the Metropolitan Police and British government for transparency, accountability, and reform of these practices, and was able for the first time to elicit hard evidence for what the black community already knew about the discriminatory use of stop and search powers.



 For example, in the year 1994, Grant noticed a stark increase in the number of people in his constituency who were being stopped and searched, and noted that the majority of them appeared to be Black motorists. Upon pressing the Superintendent of Tottenham Police Station for figures in July 1994, the data he later received demonstrated that instances of stop and searches had indeed increased since 1993, by a staggering 100% . The data also showed that around 90% of those stop and searches conducted led to no follow up arrest, meaning that 90% of these stops were conducted without justification. Grant wrote to the Haringey Race and Equality Council, Haringey Community and Police Consultative Group, and the incoming Chief Superintendent of Tottenham Police Station David Gilbertson, in November 1994. Gilbertson’s response to Grant indicated that Grant’s requests for proper investigation were taken up by the Community and Police Consultative Group, and that Grant and Gilbertson would maintain communication about the issue, and a positive relationship. 

Grant therefore used his position to demand the first ever figures denoting the break down of stop and search incidents by ethnicity. The figures confirmed what members of the black community had always known, but to that point could not evidence effectively.

On 2nd December 1994, Grant raised the increase of stop and searches during a parliamentary debate on policing, noting that between 1990-1993, instances of stop and searches had on the whole increased by 50% despite a fall in the number of arrests made from these stops. Jeremy Corbyn  made an additional point during the debate, that many people from Black and minority ethnic backgrounds who are stopped, often face passport and immigration checks during these stops, which can detain them for several hours. Grant requested a breakdown of the stop and search data across London boroughs which included the ethnic background of those stopped, as well as information related to his own constituency. The statistics not only displayed the shocking ethnic disparities between those stopped and searched in London boroughs, they also detailed the terminologies used to describe different ethnic backgrounds. ‘Negroid Types’ was used to refer to people assumed to be of African descent, ‘Indian and Pakistani types’ were used to refer to people assumed to be of South Asian descent, etc.

These facts were shared by Grant, with fellow Labour Party MPs and the Haringey Racial Equality Council, the chairman of which shared Grant’s outrage at the “offensive” terminologies used. These terms had also been used by police during the days of the ‘sus’ law, and certainly in 1981 during the series of uprisings. Clearly very little had changed in between then and the mid-90s. Alongside pressing the Metropolitan Police, Grant and Gilbertson worked on a stop and search leaflet to be distributed to the Haringey community which provided information on people’s rights during a stop and search. This initiative which was supported by Haringey Council, Haringey Racial Equality Council, the Asian Centre and the Asian Action Group, although there was some criticism about the lack of consultation during the process. 

When Gilbertson was promoted out of his role as Chief Superintendent of Tottenham, he wrote to Grant that “in all my dealings with you insincerity is not a charge that could be laid at your door”. Grant’s response portrayed this mutual feeling, and also reveals that Gilbertson’s approach toward the job of policing in Tottenham was unfortunately rare: “Sadly there have been few of your predecessors who have been prepared or able to match your creativity and integrity”. Not all conversations with senior members of the police were so fruitful. Grant initially raised the issue of stop and search with Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Paul Condon on 9th December 1994, after addressing having raised it in parliament. Once armed with the data on stops and searches which showed that in some boroughs, Black people accounted for 57% of all stops, Grant publicly challenged Condon to provide an explanation in February 1995. However, Condon seemingly believed the excessive and discriminatory use of stop and search was justified, and stated in a letter to Grant in July 1995 that: “It is a fact that very many of the perpetrators of muggings are very young black people, who have been excluded from school and/or unemployed”. Stop and search and PACE still remains a pillar of police practices today. And thus, the problems it poses in regards to racist discrimination and criminalisation of Black and global majority people remains a key issue. Many activists, organisations and public officials continue to challenge this police power, and its overuse on Black and global majority people.

During a parliamentary debate on PACE in December 2010, Richard Fuller, then Conservative MP for Bedford, pointed to the fact that Black individuals were six times more likely to be stopped and searched than their white counterparts, and Asian individuals were twice as likely. He acknowledged that this subject was a rare occurrence in which he agreed with the stance of Bernie Grant, even quoting his words from 1997: “Nothing has been more damaging to the relationship between the police and the black community than the ill judged use of stop and search powers. For young black men in particular, the humiliating experience of being repeatedly stopped and searched is a fact of life”. Decades on from this statement, discriminatory policing continues to be a significant issue for Black people in Britain. Recent statistics demonstrate that Black people are 7 times more likely to be stopped and searched than their white counterparts, although this rate is likely to be higher considering the number of stop and search reports that have reported a person’s ethnicity as “unknown”. Further to this, Black people continue to be disproportionately subjected to force during instances with police, and are more likely to die in police custody or after contact with police than their white counterparts. Bernie Grant’s emphasis on the importance of this issue remains highly relevant.