The Smiley Culture Verdict: a peculiar conception of justice

More than 2 years after his death, an inquest jury has finally delivered a verdict on the death of cult reggae star David "Smiley Culture" Emmanuel. It is one that will offer little comfort to his family or those, like myself, who rallied behind the "Campaign4Justice for Smiley Culture" in the wake of yet another unquestionably avoidable death, contributed to by basic failings by the authorities.

Smiley died shortly after 4 police officers attended his home to execute a search warrant. Despite being under arrest, he was able to escape the supervision of these officers, make his way to the kitchen, take a knife from the drawer and inflict a single, fatal blow to his heart. The verdict: suicide.

The implication of the jury's verdict on these "tragic events" is that Smiley  resorted to this desperate act to avoid the prospect of a long prison sentence for drugs offences with which he had been charged and bailed, pending a trial just days before his death. That is certainly the simplest, most convenient explanation. Not least because 3 of his co-accused were later convicted and sentenced to lengthy custodial sentences. But there are some who have gone a step further and suggested that this renders the circumstances of Smiley's death as unworthy of concern. It is a narrative that characterised the death of Mark Duggan as that of a gun-toting drug dealer, who, one way or another, got what was coming to him, as did Azelle Rodney, if only for travelling in a car where other passengers may have had guns. The (subconcious?) public receptivity to this idea was well understood by the Met Taskforce intent on smearing the Lawrence Campaign.

Whilst the hang 'em and flog 'em brigade, members of which dismissed the outcry at Smiley's death as "a lot of fuss" might not have any truck with the presumption of innocence for "them", as opposed to "us" . These were men who died innocent of any crime. The farcical misinformation that followed in the wake of Duggan's death, to which even the IPCC contributed, was quickly exposed. The events leading to the death of Azelle Rodney remain the subject of a public inquiry that is due to report this Friday. Whilst we will never know what Smiley was or was not involved in, it does not matter.

Equally as fundamental as the presumption of innocence, is the Rule of Law. Even if a person is/was guilty of a crime,  we are subject to a standing police force not mob rule. The idea that justice is only for people who are "really" innocent is comfort to a fool and must be rejected without hesitation. As Smiley's nephew, Merlin, who set up the justice campaign has put it:

"My gripe with my uncle's death is not if he was an angel or demon but how he died.. It was most peculiar to say the least. If any other person's family member had died under such peculiar circumstances, of course, by default, there would be an understandable concern."

However, straight-forward the outcome may have been to some, it did not convince everyone on the jury. After 12 hours of indecisive deliberations, the coroner accepted a majority verdict.

Even if (and it remains, in my view a big "if") the prospect of prison suffices to explain why Smiley might have done what he did, ask yourself this. Just how is a man, now in the custody of no less than 4 officers, allowed to find himself in a situation where he can get hold of knife and take his own life? According to the police account, up until his very last few moments, Smiley had been calm. One of the officers attending was known to Smiley and described him as being "courteous, respectful, and compliant". So much so, he was able to stand:

"[u]nobserved... from his chair and obtained the knife
from an unknown location. The severity of the injury meant that, despite the officers
best endeavours and paramedic attendance, Mr Emmanuel could not be saved."

What trigged a sudden change in mood that saw him apparently become aggressive? Threatening officers before turning the knife on himself?
 
That Met supervision, or more accurately the lack of it, was a contributing factor in his death, was so evident that it is little wonder that the jury were able to agree on this point. How is it that trained officers allowed this to happen? The decision to make the one of the officers responsible for supervising Smiley and the search was accepted as a contributing factor. In addition, according to the chambers of Leslie Thomas, who represented the family:

[t]he inquest has also highlighted serious failings in the Independent Police Complaints Commission's investigation, including a failure to attend the scene until some four hours after the event, a failure to secure all relevant evidence, and a failure to critically analyse opinions expressed by the expert witnesses.

Although, these observations do not appear on the verdict itself.

Yet again however, there will be no further opportunity to examine the officers concerned. The Coroner will write to the Met to highlight the failings but the IPCC are standing by their decision not to pursue misconduct proceedings. Perplexingly, this is despite recognising that:

"[t]he ongoing assessments made by officers were left wanting. Four experienced officers felt it appropriate to detain a suspect in the kitchen, potentially the most dangerous room in the house and afforded him a level of freedom not normally associated with an operation of this kind."

The promises of a more robust Commission, endowed with more potent investigative powers in the wake of Hillsborough revelations and its shambolic handling of the investigation into the death of Sean Rigg are, as I expected already exposed as bitterly hollow.

The verdict has been met with consternation by Smiley's family. It is hard to argue with the feelings of his daughter Shenice McConnachie that, in truth, the verdict brings us "no closer to the truth". There are simply too many unanswered questions. Without them, there can be no justice.