:00:13. > :00:15.Tonight on Newsnight Scotland, was it a racist killing or not? Today,
:00:15. > :00:20.police apologised for failing to investigate the death of Simon San
:00:20. > :00:27.at the hands of a gang of youths as a rationly motivated crime. Yet the
:00:27. > :00:32.Crown office say they wouldn't have prosecuted it as such. So who is
:00:32. > :00:36.right? The MP, Tom Harris, attempts to liven the moribund Scottish
:00:36. > :00:40.Labour leadership debate by suggesting he might run. I will ask
:00:40. > :00:45.nim he's serious or if he's just stirring things up. It's rare to
:00:45. > :00:48.see someone in authority apologise so fully for a mistake made by
:00:48. > :00:51.their organisation. This afternoon, Lothian and Borders Police issued
:00:51. > :00:55.an apology to the family of Simon San for refusing to treat his
:00:55. > :01:00.killing as a racially motivated crime and issued a public apology.
:01:00. > :01:07.The case does does raise issues about how the police and the Crown
:01:07. > :01:11.office handle race hate crimes. Catriona Renton reports. I have
:01:11. > :01:14.apologised privately to the family for that failure. I would like to
:01:14. > :01:19.reneat apology publicly. admission of failure. Almost
:01:20. > :01:25.exactly a year ago, 40-year-old Simon San was just doing his job at
:01:25. > :01:30.a takeaway in Edinburgh, he was killed. Police ignored his family's
:01:30. > :01:35.insistance that the crime was racially motivated. I'm sorry that
:01:35. > :01:41.we did not listen to you when you told us that you thought the attack
:01:41. > :01:48.on Simon was racially motivated. I am sorry that we did not treat you
:01:48. > :01:53.in a way that made you feel like you mattered to us. I'm sorry that
:01:53. > :01:58.we did not record and investigate the attack on Simon as a racist
:01:58. > :02:02.incident, when we should have done so. No apology can bring back a
:02:02. > :02:07.much-loved son and brother, Mr San's father spoke through his
:02:07. > :02:12.solicitor. The findings do not offer me any peace. They merely
:02:12. > :02:16.confirm that we were right, and that we have not been treated
:02:16. > :02:21.appropriately by the officers. This is the darkest moment of my life.
:02:21. > :02:26.Knowing that I'm going to be left alone in this house soon. My wife's
:02:26. > :02:31.health was improving after an operation two years ago. Since
:02:31. > :02:36.Simon's death, her health has been deteriorating. The inquiry also
:02:36. > :02:39.demonstrated that racist incidents, before my son's death, were not
:02:39. > :02:43.addressed appropriately. I feel there was a lack of respect in the
:02:43. > :02:49.importance of my son's death by appointing an untrained officer to
:02:49. > :02:52.lead the investigation. Mr San was part parking his delivery car when
:02:52. > :02:56.a gang of youths attacked him. They rocked the car. He managed to get
:02:56. > :03:00.out and call the police. He was pushed to a call and punched in the
:03:00. > :03:05.face. He suffered severe head injuries and died later in hospital.
:03:05. > :03:10.At no point was the attack treated as racist. A random attack,
:03:10. > :03:14.obviously. Not a lot of violence involved. It's one punch.
:03:14. > :03:17.Unfortunately, the gentlemen fell badly and injured his head. Really
:03:18. > :03:22.a random and minor assault the consequences were obviously quite
:03:22. > :03:27.severe. 16-year-old John Reid was sentenced to five years for killing
:03:27. > :03:29.Simon San. Two younger teenagers were convicted of assault. Mr San's
:03:29. > :03:35.family believe, had the racist element been considered, the
:03:35. > :03:38.outcome may have been different. welcome the apology. We welcome the
:03:38. > :03:41.findings of the police inquiry that there was significant failures by
:03:41. > :03:47.Lothian and Borders Police. That is a matter now closed, with regards
:03:47. > :03:49.to the police inquiry. The issue arises as to whether the Lord
:03:49. > :03:53.Advocate will order an immediate enquiry into the prosecution
:03:53. > :03:57.decision making in this case. police carried out an internal
:03:57. > :04:01.investigation. Its conclusions were damning. It found significant
:04:01. > :04:05.failings in the police inquiry. It said, the police placed little
:04:05. > :04:10.emphasis on racist language used by the accused. Witnesses said, a
:04:10. > :04:15.short time after the attack, the group responsible were directly
:04:15. > :04:21.referring to Mr San as a Chinky. One of accuse had had been reported
:04:21. > :04:25.for a racist offence. Two of the other owe accused had been charged
:04:25. > :04:27.together where the victim was a Chinese shopkeeper. It concluded
:04:27. > :04:34.Lothian and Borders Police had failed to recognise the attack on
:04:34. > :04:44.Simon was racist. The Stephen Lawrence enquiry defined a racist
:04:44. > :04:45.
:04:45. > :04:51.incident is: There are over 100,000 people from all minority ethnic
:04:51. > :04:56.backgrounds in Scotland. Last year, 5 cle 819 racially aggravated
:04:57. > :04:59.crimes were committed here. How many go unnoticed what are the
:04:59. > :05:03.consequences in a local community when a crime like this happens?
:05:03. > :05:13.There was a damage at the beginning of the inquiry. Listening to the
:05:13. > :05:15.
:05:15. > :05:21.senior police officers today, there is a trust gained again and, I feel,
:05:21. > :05:25.that the police need more training, so they handle the case properly.
:05:25. > :05:29.Especially, this sensitive cases should be dealt with in a different
:05:29. > :05:33.way. Even though the police investigation is over, there are
:05:34. > :05:38.still questions to be answered. The Crown office says there will be no
:05:38. > :05:42.inquiry as its satisfied with the prosecution of the case. No-one was
:05:42. > :05:45.available from the Crown office, but I'm joined from Edinburgh by
:05:45. > :05:52.the Deputy Chief Constable of Lothian and Borders Police. You saw
:05:52. > :05:56.him in the film there. Stephen alAllen, first of all, can you
:05:56. > :06:00.clear up, I appreciate you have apologised publicly and to the
:06:00. > :06:04.family. What are you saying here, exactly? Are you saying, as a
:06:04. > :06:09.matter-of-fact, this was a racially motivated attack? I think we have
:06:09. > :06:13.been very clear today that the family, in the aftermath of the
:06:13. > :06:16.attack on Simon, made a number of complaints about the response of
:06:16. > :06:21.Lothian and Borders Police. Those complaints covered a range of
:06:21. > :06:26.issues, including statement that is we made to the media, our
:06:26. > :06:29.investigation of previous offences, issues such as the use of
:06:29. > :06:34.interpreters during the inquiry. Significantly, our failure to
:06:34. > :06:38.listen to them early on, when they said that they believed the attack
:06:38. > :06:43.was motivated by racism. Our failure, at that stage, to record
:06:43. > :06:46.the incident as a racist incident. We have worked our way through each
:06:46. > :06:50.of those complaints with the fament family, over the last few months.
:06:50. > :06:56.We worked our way through the findings with them and explained
:06:56. > :07:00.those. As I said at the press conference earlier, I have sat down
:07:00. > :07:06.with the family and apologised privately to them. They are feeling,
:07:06. > :07:09.quite rightly, we made statements in the media publicly in the
:07:10. > :07:13.immediate aftermath of Simon's death. It was appropriate we we
:07:13. > :07:16.should make our apology to the family public as well. That doesn't
:07:16. > :07:22.answer my question, which is whether you now believe that this
:07:22. > :07:27.was a racially motivated attack? think it's important we understand
:07:27. > :07:30.that which it is we are talking about. We apologised, I apologised
:07:30. > :07:35.today because, clearly, Lothian and Borders Police, should have
:07:35. > :07:39.recorded this attack as a racist incident in the immediate aftermath.
:07:39. > :07:43.In your package you explained the definition of a racist incident,
:07:43. > :07:47.which is any incident where the victim, or any other person,
:07:47. > :07:52.perceive it is to be so. It was quite clear, from the outset, that
:07:52. > :08:01.the family perceived it to be so. We should have recorded it. That,
:08:01. > :08:06.however, is different from libeling a charge or a racialing a vaited to
:08:06. > :08:14.the offence which depends on the evidence brought ford. That is a
:08:14. > :08:19.matter for the Crown, not us. other words, you are apologising
:08:19. > :08:23.for stress caused you are not saying as a matter-of-fact this was
:08:23. > :08:29.a racially aggravated attack? number of respects, my organisation,
:08:29. > :08:34.failed the San family. We are public servants. The criminal
:08:34. > :08:39.justice system involves a number of organisations, all of us, I believe,
:08:39. > :08:42.are under a duty to acknowledge where our service falls short.
:08:42. > :08:48.reason I'm asking you this, there are mixed messages here, aren't
:08:48. > :08:51.there? On the one hand, what you have been saying. The Crown office
:08:51. > :08:56.today has said that, it doesn't believe it could have prosecuted
:08:56. > :09:00.this as a racially motivated attack. It has given detailed reasons why
:09:00. > :09:04.it doesn't believe that. The reasons are to do with the evidence
:09:04. > :09:07.that your officers collected. Now, you are saying there is no
:09:07. > :09:11.contradiction - With respect, I don't think there is a
:09:11. > :09:14.contradiction. There has been debate in recent weeks about police
:09:14. > :09:17.accountability. What you have seen today is police accountability in
:09:17. > :09:21.real-life. This is where my organisation believes that, in some
:09:21. > :09:25.respects, in certain respects, we have failed Simon's family. That we
:09:25. > :09:31.have to take responsibility for those failures. Mitt we have been
:09:31. > :09:36.clear about what those failures are. My apology was specific in terms of
:09:36. > :09:41.our failure to listen to the family. Our failure to treat them - please,
:09:41. > :09:46.if you allow me to finish. And, also, our failure to record this as
:09:46. > :09:49.a racist incident. Right. As I say, there are different agencies
:09:49. > :09:52.involved in the criminal justice process. We answered for our
:09:52. > :10:02.actions. It is not my place to answer on behalf 6 our other
:10:02. > :10:03.
:10:03. > :10:08.organisations. They will now do If I can quoted from the Crown
:10:08. > :10:16.Office statement, the Crown was alert to the question of racial
:10:16. > :10:21.motivation, and raised the issue with the police at an early stage.
:10:21. > :10:29.After careful consideration, the Crown counsel concluded there was
:10:29. > :10:34.no evidence to show the attack was racially motivated. They are saying
:10:34. > :10:39.there is no need for any inquiry. That is a very different public
:10:39. > :10:47.message about what you told them, than the message you are trying to
:10:47. > :10:52.put up. I do not think that is correct. A guiding principle for us
:10:52. > :10:57.in these circumstances is an issue for the family is an issue a us,
:10:57. > :11:04.therefore if the family ask a question, we are under a duty to
:11:04. > :11:09.provide them with an answer. The family are now asking different
:11:09. > :11:17.questions of the Crown Office, and the Crown Office now have to
:11:17. > :11:24.determine how they choose to answer those questions. That is the first
:11:24. > :11:27.point. The second point, we provided all the evidence that was
:11:27. > :11:36.available to the Crown, and his is for them to answer how they assess
:11:36. > :11:39.that evidence. -- and it is for them. The inquiry we have conducted
:11:39. > :11:44.found there was no additional evidence that the original inquiry
:11:44. > :11:48.had not found that we had not passed to the Crown Office, but I
:11:48. > :11:53.think it is important to stress that Allah apology for failing to
:11:53. > :12:03.record this as her racist incident is not the same as answering for
:12:03. > :12:08.the Crown. -- as a racist incident. But from the public's point of you,
:12:09. > :12:16.what appears to be said is, we are sorry did not treat this as a
:12:16. > :12:20.racist incident because under the terms of the investigation, if
:12:20. > :12:27.someone feels it is, we will acknowledge that it is. But
:12:27. > :12:33.actually, it would not have made any difference to the ways in which
:12:33. > :12:39.the boys were prosecuted. I appreciate you are not the Crown
:12:39. > :12:49.Office. But for a member of the public, this just looks, frankly,
:12:49. > :12:49.
:12:49. > :12:56.Ord. I am not sure that it does. Ord. What kind of police service to
:12:56. > :13:01.the public want? I believe they want a police service that routine
:13:01. > :13:03.League delivers excellence, but when we get it wrong, we are
:13:03. > :13:09.prepared to stand up and acknowledge that we have got it
:13:09. > :13:13.wrong, and our commitment is to change to be better. Thank you very
:13:13. > :13:16.much indeed. Iain Gray is due to stand down as
:13:16. > :13:18.Labour leader in the Scottish Parliament, and so far, the contest
:13:18. > :13:21.to replace him is non-existent. After May's election defeat, many
:13:21. > :13:25.would see it as hardly an inviting job, so it's perhaps no surprise
:13:25. > :13:28.most of the rumours are about which MSPs have decided not to run. This
:13:28. > :13:33.morning, the MP Tom Harris stirred things up by suggesting he might
:13:33. > :13:43.run. I will ask him what he's up to in a moment, but why would he want
:13:43. > :13:44.
:13:44. > :13:48.the job? Labour slump as the SNP's vote
:13:48. > :13:57.soared. Previously saved seeds tumbled, and frontbenchers were
:13:57. > :14:02.voted out. -- safe seats. It is my view that we have to address
:14:02. > :14:09.fundamental questions about the structure and organisation of the
:14:09. > :14:16.Labour Party in Scotland, what went wrong, and where we go from here. I
:14:16. > :14:22.it want to start that process. But in the autumn, I will stand down,
:14:22. > :14:25.and it will be for the Labour Party to decide how we go forward from
:14:26. > :14:30.there. By out as autumn approaches, there
:14:30. > :14:40.is no obvious successor, and it is not clear what the job description
:14:40. > :14:46.
:14:46. > :14:50.it will be. Jim Murphy and Sarah Boyack may recommend that he will
:14:50. > :14:56.be the party leader. Since the leadership election cannot start
:14:56. > :15:06.both to cut -- before the review's findings will be ratified, it looks
:15:06. > :15:09.
:15:09. > :15:18.like Iain Gray will remain leader until the winter. The current
:15:18. > :15:23.deputy leader seems to be the only MSP likely to stand. Tom Harris
:15:23. > :15:30.says he hopes high-profile MPs will put themselves forward. In the
:15:30. > :15:38.meantime, the silence is deafening. Tom Harris is here. You don't
:15:38. > :15:45.really want this job, do you? actually! I have a masochistic
:15:45. > :15:51.streak in me! What are you saying we want other people like Jim
:15:51. > :15:59.Murphy to stand. Are you saying you just like some high-profile people
:15:59. > :16:06.to stand? In politics, the more candidates you have, the better the
:16:06. > :16:13.chance of action is selecting the best candidate. The better it will
:16:13. > :16:21.be for the party. You are going to enter this race, aren't you? I have
:16:21. > :16:25.not formally said so. I was adamant I wanted the job, the question is,
:16:25. > :16:35.it will I be allowed to stand? We do not know if the new rules will
:16:35. > :16:38.
:16:38. > :16:44.allow MPs to stand. If they do, you will? If I have enough support. Yes,
:16:44. > :16:54.with all those Cabinet, I do want to stand. If you did, at what would
:16:54. > :16:58.
:16:58. > :17:04.you say? It is inconceivable for the leader of the Scottish party to
:17:04. > :17:09.say they would not stand. Whoever is selected as the Labour leader
:17:09. > :17:15.will be our candidate for First Minister. You cannot be First
:17:15. > :17:25.Minister outside Holyrood. So you would stand down and if -- next
:17:25. > :17:29.
:17:29. > :17:35.general election? I think Alex Salmond has created the President.
:17:35. > :17:43.So what you would do, you would have to stand down at the next
:17:43. > :17:53.general election, leaving nuclear to stand? -- leading nuclear to
:17:53. > :18:00.stand? That would be my ideal scenario, but who knows? All of
:18:01. > :18:10.this is so up in the air at the moment. Why it has best been at
:18:11. > :18:11.
:18:11. > :18:17.such a rubbish debate? The party is still in a shop. -- in a shock. I
:18:17. > :18:25.am getting impatient that we have had four months of the SNP setting
:18:25. > :18:30.debates in Scotland, and Labour not being present. You said this
:18:30. > :18:40.morning, you didn't know whether Iain Gray was going to stand down
:18:40. > :18:50.next month. I knew any wiser this evening? I am not. I can understand
:18:50. > :18:53.
:18:53. > :18:58.why he wants to step down. I don't understand the mechanism. Whenever
:18:58. > :19:04.the election will happen, it is inconceivable that the election
:19:04. > :19:14.will take place before next month, so here is suggesting he stand down
:19:14. > :19:17.
:19:17. > :19:25.end-September. I am in the dark as You were going to explain to me why
:19:25. > :19:30.the debate has been off ought to non existent. I don't know. I think
:19:30. > :19:39.because the party feels that wide this review is underway, there is
:19:40. > :19:46.no point in having a debate. My announcing that I am interested in
:19:46. > :19:52.standing will inform people there is a demand. So it is essentially a
:19:52. > :19:59.bureaucratic process? This is all about mechanisms and the process of
:19:59. > :20:03.the party. But what is important is having a leader but can articulate
:20:03. > :20:10.and attractive policy and message that will go well beyond the Labour