A DETECTIVE said it was “blindingly obvious” after Sheku Bayoh’s death that “race was the main factor” in the police response, an inquiry has heard.
A father-of-two, Bayoh, 31, died after he was restrained on the ground by six police officers in Kirkcaldy, Fife, on May 3, 2015. The inquiry is investigating the circumstances of his death and whether race was a factor.
At the inquiry on Friday, retired detective chief superintendent Lesley Boal was asked about a “race hypothesis”.
She was line manager for senior investigating officer Pat Campbell, but said she did not ask him if it was a strategy because she believed it was “blindingly obvious”, the inquiry heard.
Bayoh died in hospital at 9am, according to a statement given to his family.
READ MORE: Ian Blackford demands motorhome code of conduct after NC500 crashes
Boal said the officers involved were treated as witnesses by both Police Scotland and the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner (Pirc) rather than suspects.
She said there were “tumbleweed moments” at a meeting with lead investigators Pirc at 11.30am, and her suggestions were met with silence.
Boal said she wanted statements to be taken from officers, but none were given due to legal advice from the Police Federation.
She said family liaison officers (FLOs) were crucial but at 1.30pm she pressed for officers to deliver the death message as “every Tom, Dick and Harry knows except the family”, and she was worried about the delay.
But she said she was unaware of a decision to withhold information about police involvement.
Boal said: “Did I sit down and ask Pat that one of these hypotheses was that the officers’ actions were racially motivated? I didn’t. I thought it was blindingly obvious to everybody. Why were we all there if this wasn’t one of the key factors?
READ MORE: Scottish schools to be checked for dangerous concrete after English closures
“A man had died in police custody and he was a black man. This was the major issue here.
“From what had happened in other parts of UK, from previous incidents, it was so serious. Of course it was a critical incident.
“A black male had died following restraint by police officers. Of course race was the main factor in terms of how the officers had dealt with it.”
She said the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service or Pirc would decide on the “status” of officers, and Police Scotland was there to give “support”.
Boal said: “There had been a discussion about officers’ status beforehand, I was very clear in my head they were significant witnesses.
READ MORE: Humza Yousaf offers to help UK Government with junior doctor strikes
“We had no evidence a crime had been committed. There was agreement across the board at that.
“Around 12.15-ish I’d gone down to an office or the conference room, Pat Campbell came in, something must have happened and I don’t know what.
“He made the comment: ‘Apparently we can’t take statements off the officers.’ “My position was ‘of course we can, they’re witnesses’.
“There was no reason why we couldn’t ask for officers to provide statements.”
However the officers refused to do so, the inquiry heard, as advised by the Federation which represents rank-and-file officers
Boal said she felt it might have been “beneficial” for Pirc to make it clear the officers’ status was as witnesses.
READ MORE: Rishi Sunak's communications director quits after just 10 months
She also said that at a 1.30pm briefing, it became clear to her that Pirc FLOs were not going to visit the family that day.
She told the inquiry: “I said to Pat ‘I think we should get officers to pass the death message’.
“Every Tom, Dick and Harry has been told about this apart from the family. We can’t wait another two hours for FLOs.
“There was an agreement officers would give the death message.”
However the initial message did not inform the family of police contact.
Boal said: “I have no idea who instructed officers not to disclose some information as to the context of Mr Bayoh’s death.”
When asked if it was “damaging” to the relationship, she said: “Yes.”
The inquiry, before Lord Bracadale, continues.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel