05/01/2012 Newsnight Scotland

short term, this becomes an ethical rather than a legal debate.

Tonight on Newsnight Scotland, we revisit the murder case which has

been described as Scotland's version of Stephen Lawrence. It is

ten years since the lord advocate apologised for the justice system's

failures in the case of Surjit Singh Chhokar, amid accusations of

institutional racism. But last month's change in the law may offer

new hope of justice being done. Also tonight, the brave new world

of Scottish Conservatism. The party's new leader tells the

faithful "the flame is still burning".

Good evening. The case of Surjit Singh Chhokar has often been

compared to that of Stephen Lawrence. The Sikh waiter was

murdered in Lanarkshire in 1998. Three men accused of his murder

were acquitted, but subsequent official inquiries were severely

critical of the police and the Procurator Fiscal Service. Ten

years ago, the then Lord Advocate issued a public apology for

"incompetence, ignorance and institutional racism". Now Scotland

has a new law which allows the possibility, for the first time, of

conducting a second trial for the same offence. It was a similar

change in England which allowed the new trial in the Stephen Lawrence

case. Chhokar was stabbed to death

outside his girlfriend's home in Lanarkshire. Three men were accused

of his murder. One was brought to trial first. He was acquitted of

murder after blaming his nephew and another man, David Montgomery. They

would try the following year and were also acquitted of murder after

blaming the first man. In 2001, the then lord advocate, Colin Boyd,

ordered two inquiries into the case. Both were damning. Advocate -- an

advocate found that there had been he institutional racism in the way

that both Strathclyde police and the fiscal Office had dealt with

the family. A Northern Irish judge strongly criticised the legal

tactic of the two trials, but found no racial element in the poor

handling of the case. Colin Boyd apologised to the Chhokar family

and admitted the need for change. We have changed and are committed

to further change. We recognise the need for increased accountability.

* Apply police also admitted the need to change their procedures --

Strathclyde police. But there Assistant Chief Constable seemed

unhappy with the definition of institutional racism. In the

context of what has been defined as institutional racism, it would be

difficult for any organisation to say that they did not have evidence

of that in the way they conducted affairs. The assumption at the time

was that the Crown Office had blown its only chance to convict the

killers of Surjit Singh Chhokar. The real issue was the Crown

Office's failure to prosecute the killers of Surjit Singh Chhokar.

Those men will never be brought to justice. No one should forget that.

But now there is a new law of double jeopardy. The Crown Office

has not ruled out using that ought to reopen the case. It is possible

that the Chhokar family may finally see justice done.

I am joined now by two of the guests who appeared on that

programme in 2001. Aaamer Anwar still acts as solicitor for the

Chhokar family, and Graeme Pearson, then a senior police officer, is

now an opposition MSP. In the wake of the Lawrence verdicts this week,

Aaamer Anwar, what would you like to see happened in the Chhokar

case? I spoke to the family before Christmas and again today, and

there has always been hope within the family. They were betrayed by

the system that was supposed to give them justice, and their son's

killers still walk the streets. The family are asking for something

simple - justice. They want the men responsible for their son's murder

to be behind bars. This change in the law came into place at the end

of last year. In theory, it makes that possible, but but practically

making it possible is different. Practically, the lord advocate's

office heralded the big change of double jeopardy, as did the justice

minister, so it is up to them to consider whether there is new

evidence. There has been revolutionary change regarding DNA

and forensic evidence. We want the Crown Office to revisit the case

with a fresh pair of eyes. We want police officers to look at the case

again. The reality is that everybody knows who the three men

were when Surjit Singh Chhokar was murdered. And three men walked, not

on one, but two occasions, free from the High Court in Glasgow.

Graeme Pearson, but your policeman's hat back on, Aaamer

Anwar says there might need to be new forensic evidence. This did

years in the case of Stephen Lawrence. It was 2007 when they

discovered that crucial spot of blood. So there would have to be a

major forensic effort? Yes. The science of DNA has changed a great

deal in the last decade, so there is a possibility that one could

harvest additional evidence. And as was acknowledged in the needed to

the current discussion, there was an acknowledgement within the court

that the tactics used in the trial allowed an opening for people to

seek justice. Do you agree that there is a case to put resources

into this and see what they can come up with? The Chhokar case has

always been a difficult case for the Scottish judicial system. One

change in the law allowing a retrial of people seems an ideal

set of circumstances to revisit, and to try and achieve justice for

the Chhokar family. I do not know whether it is a difference in the

law between here and England or not, but one of the points the judge

made when he sentenced the two convicted this week was, it does

not matter whether you will do the fatal blow or stabbed Stephen

Lawrence, you were part of a gang which approached him with lethal

intent. If the judge or judges in the two trials in the Chhokar case

take the same view, this peculiar defence that they each had of the

other one did it would not have been available. If a gang goes out

armed with a baseball bat and a knife, and at the end of that

attack, a man lies dead on the ground, as did Surjit Singh Chhokar,

stabbed repeatedly and beaten to death, one would expect that all

three men should be found guilty of murder. But it was a tactic by the

Crown Office to prosecute firstly one individual, like him to blame

the other two, only for them to blame the first one. If the judge

in the first trial had said that is irrelevant, you were part of a gang

that did this, I have a convicted of murder, they could not have got

away with that defence. It was a matter for the prosecution to

prosecute the case and then for the defence and the jury to decide. It

allowed one individual to say it was the other two, and then for the

other two to blame him. We are a decade on later, and the Crown

Office has had fundamental changes, as the police have, in the way they

treat families and victims. There is one running sore that still

exists to this day, the betrayal of Justice of the Chhokar family. The

Crown Office have a duty to revisit the case and see if justice can be

done to be fair to the Crown Office, they have to worry about things

like prejudicing future trials. other side of that is, are we a bit

slow to understand the politics with a small p of this and say, as

Aaamer Anwar says, this is a running sore, and for the

authorities to say publicly, as both the Metropolitan Police and

the CPS have said in England all There is some truth in that, we

tend to be parochial in Scotland and say we have done our best and

that is a matter of course but the law has changed. Parliament has

changed a lot and allows the door to open on revisiting cases where

it is perceived that new evidence is available and that conviction

can be achieved. One should read is that those cases which lie in our

history and cried out for some response. I think this is one of

them and the Crown should take a really close look at these

circumstances and if they deem it responsible and advisable, it

should come back to the courts. There were two inquiries into this.

Today they say they are reviewing cases in light of the change in the

law last year and are not saying anything about specific cases so

they are not ruling anything in or out. There were two inquiries into

the case of Surjit Singh Chokhar. They were supposed to introduce

enormous changes in Scotland and a new experience, have they?

starting point is that both of those inquiries were condemned by

the Chhokar family. They actually walked out of those inquiries

because they thought it was a whitewash and they consider those

inquiry still to be a whitewash. Imagine the Lawrence inquiry

without the family giving evidence in public and without a lawyer has

been able to cross-examine the Metropolitan Police. You have a

whitewash and sending... It never works with these inquiries. The

fact is, there was revolutionary change that took place as a result,

it was a shock to the system regarding the police but

unfortunately the enquiry allowed the Crown to get off the hook and

focus of attention on the police when, at the time, but family were

very much focused on the prosecution system and the press

jump onto the fact that the Stephen Lawrence case, the same police in

England and up here and what we had was a system of justice, relatively

unchanged for hundreds of years, run like a gentleman's club,

shrouded in secrecy, and with unaccountability. Some families and

victims say that the same process continues today and that is why the

Crown Office has a duty to prove that it has fundamentally changed.

Do you recognise that picture? the time there was a focus on

Strathclyde police because they conducted the investigation and

were things were fundamentally difference -- different from

Lawrence inquiry was that the police delivered suspects accused

to the courts. You agree with Amer Anwar? The element that caused so

much difficulty... The police did not have a lot to learn. We should

remind people that the criticism of the place was in the way they

handle the family rather than going about catching people? Within the

first 24 hours, the police decision is to deny racism but that

perpetuate racism and closes down one line of the inquiry. That was a

lesson it was learned and was not repeated. If it was repeated, it

was by a fool. The thank you but they're much indeed for joining us.

-- thank you both very much. How does a new political leader make a

mark, especially when some members believe her party to be moribund?

As a former journalist, Ruth Davidson should have some idea of

how to use the media. Today, she began the process of making the

news by recreating the public image of the Scottish Tories. She

embodies a surprising change in being a young, female, openly gay

Conservative leader. Derek Bateman has been listening to the new voice

of Scottish Conservatism. BBC Radio Scotland... It is for 30 1:00am.

Ruth Davidson and Barry Stewart. isn't so long ago that Ruth

Davidson was a radio journalist at the BBC. Today, she was on the

other side of the cloud and on the other side of the microphone and on

the other side in the war of attrition between journalists and

politicians. The new Tory leader is still forging the impression she

wants the voters to accept and the first matter of note in today's

speech was for almost total omission of Alex Salmond. There was

one brief mention. The reporter would have noted this as refusing

to be defined by someone else. must be the decade were we won

again for Scotland, when we reach out to people who have stopped

listening to us. Or perhaps never did. We are proud of who we are,

proud of what we stand for. Proud of our values. Because they are

Scotland's five years. Tories in Scotland are supposed to be

apologetic. Ruth Davidson knows what it's like to come out. She

wants secret Tories to do the same and stop hiding. There was much

that was conventional, more private sector, less public, empowering

individuals, working hard, not joining the Euro. There were two

references which mimicked the relentless optimism of the SNP.

can build a country and make it the best it can be. We must teach our

children to reach for the stars. Her final statement was positively

Alex Salmond. Scotland can be the envy of the world but be must work

to make it so. Thank you. There was enthusiasm from those present. Do

you know what the principles are that would set you apart from the

SNP? Common sense Unionists. We stand for common sense. Family

values. The kind of things we have to get across. We are on the side

of the common person in Scotland. And before, the Conservatives were

not aligned with the ordinary person but now she has tried to get

the party back to the centre ground of politics and that is where we

belong. But what did her own breed, her former colleagues on the other

side, make of this? Every time we have had recent elections, people

have responded well to the actual principles and the policies that

the Conservatives put forward but when it comes to voting, no chance.

The issue with Ruth Davidson is she is young, new, we saw today better

presentation was interesting and we had these young people standing

behind her. All of those above 50 and 60 were in the cheap seats!

This is a concerted effort. To take the party to work David Cameron has

taken out, in a new direction and trying to ditch some of the image

problems they have had. What Ruth Davidson is saying, is keep the

party but with the new face. That's a big question, can they do this

without ditching the party? The Tories insist that on a blind

tasting of Tory policy, people rather like them but it's only when

they are relieved as Tory policies, people turn against them. She is

talking about a journey towards 2016, she has set modest ambitions

for the Conservatives in local government elections in a few

months. As every journalist knows, Tories remained toxic. People are

not listening because of the impression they have about Tories?

That is why I said that it is important that we explain to people

why a and b show our values and principles behind the policy

announcements. There is an incumbency towards me as leader to

make sure we get that message across but to engage with people

who have stopped listening, who have not wanted to listen to us in

the past. Ruth Davidson has some heavy lifting to do. Tory

supporters down at Bedrock think it would be an achievement in itself

issue managed to lose any more votes. But she has a mandate, one

year to come up with new policies and she has probably as radical as

a nation as Tories would have come up with without the Murdo Fraser

option. And tomorrow's front pages, the Scotsman... Scottish motorists

defied the festive drink-drive crackdown. 12% rise in drivers

caught under the influence. And a picture of Audrey Baxter, convicted

for drunk driving. The Guardian... Laboured told to expect the cuts to

be credible. The party must reject shallow populism. The Independent.

There is a tribute to the photographer who died and President

Obama says that America can no longer fight the world's battles.

Cutting half a million troops, he is. And that's all from this week.

Good news, the worst storms are dying down so much lighter wind to

end the week. A very pleasant start do today. Recent sunshine becoming

more confined to the east and further west, becoming cloudier

with outbreaks of rain. Mid- afternoon, across the Midlands,

brightness, turning cloudier but it shot not spoil things. Temperatures

struggling at about seven or eight degrees. Cloudy across the south-

west with the odd spot of rain. And for Wales as well, after a bright

start, it will cloud over with dapper this to end the day. The

wind not as strong as they have been. It might turn strong across

Northern Ireland with outbreaks of rain. Churning properly wet across

the Highlands. Through the afternoon, drier and brighter for

the East. The weekend, some showers across northern and western parts

but the emphasis is on bright, breezy conditions. The wind isn't

as strong, some sunshine, one or two showers but many places will

have a fine weekend with sunshine from time to time. This is Saturday,