The Stephen Lawrence killing: Are we in for more legally rickety convictions?

Robert Henderson

It is reported that  Gary Dobson, one of the two men convicted of the murder of  the black teenager Stephen Lawrence,  has dropped his appeal against conviction (  However, the dropping of the appeal does not necessarily mean Dobson has admitted the crime.  It is unclear from media reports including the Daily Mail report (see url above) whether he has simply dropped the appeal or has  made a confession. If it is the latter, this raises the possibility that he may turn Queen’s evidence in an attempt by the state to prosecute others for the crime.

It is worth noting that the man convicted with Dobson, David Norris,  has not withdrawn his appeal. This could be a pointer to Dobson simply having dropped his appeal.  Why would Dobson simply drop an appeal if he was innocent? Mental and emotional exhaustion, perhaps, but it could also be because he has been advised that the appeal if unsuccessful could extend his  stay in prison because of the latitude given to the Parole Board over the release or otherwise of life sentence prisoners. This latter consideration could also have a role to play if Dobson has admitted to the crime.

If Dobson  has admitted to the murder why would he do so now when he had denied it for some twenty years,  including at the trial which convicted him in 2011?  (  Almost certainly it would be in the hope that  his judge-recommended minimum sentence (the tariff) of 15 years and 2 months (as he has a life sentence it could be much longer) would be reduced or even that he will get out when the recommended minimum sentence has been served. Indeed,  Dobson would have  good reason to believe that as things stand he will not be released after the minimum sentence has been served,  because when the sentences were handed down there was a good deal of media and political frothing about the length of the minimum sentences handed down to Dobson and his fellow defendant  David Norris,  (,  despite the fact  that they were aged  17 and 16 at the time of the killing and were consequently sentenced as juveniles (

There is also another reason.  The English parole system no longer requires as a matter of course an admission of guilt before someone with a life sentence is granted parole : ”It is encouraging that the typology has been embraced by the prison service and the parole board for prisoners maintaining innocence while serving indeterminate sentences (where the prisoner has no release date and does not get out until a parole board decides he or she is no longer a risk to the public). Previously, such prisoners were treated as “deniers” with no account taken of the various reasons for maintaining innocence, nor the fact that some may actually be innocent.” ( However, this is a recent development and only those deemed to have a strong  chance of being innocent are likely to  escape the innocent prisoner’s dilemma of choosing between admitting guilt or not being released when the minimum sentence has been served. Bearing in mind the general atmosphere surrounding the Lawrence case,  it is improbable that Dobson  would have had any real chance of being released  when his minimum sentence was  served if he had not confessed.

If Dobson has admitted the murder and is willing to appear as a witness for the Crown in the prosecution of others he claims were also responsible, it is  far from clear  what weight his evidence could be given.  To begin with there would be the problem that he is a proven liar. In addition he would be vulnerable to questioning about  vested interests in making the admission and of giving evidence  (leniency in the application of his life sentence and possibly the gaining of  privileges within prison).

Then there is the nature of the evidence he could provide. Unless he could do something  dramatic such as reveal where the murder weapon was kept and that  weapon could be found and be shown to have contained the DNA of Lawrence and the DNA or prints of others,  presumably all  Dobson could offer would be his testimony of having been engaged in the murder with others who he has now identified.  Then it would simply be his word – the word of a proven liar – against the word of  others.   That would surely not meet the Crown Prosecution Tests of a better than 50% chance of conviction before they proceed with a prosecution.

Even if a prosecution did go ahead simply with Dobson’s testimony as evidence, there would be grave pitfalls for the prosecution over and above Dobson’s record of lying, assuming that any admission he made was genuine.  The killing took place twenty years ago.  Consequently, there would be every chance that defence lawyers would be able to throw considerable doubt upon anything Dobson said in evidence simply by confusing him under cross examination by catching him out on contradictions, wrong dates and so on.  If Dobson’s admission was not genuine, but just made to try to obtain leniency from the Parole Board the position would become next to impossible for the prosecution because the it is rare indeed to find anyone who can produce and maintain  a coherent and consistent story if it is untrue.  (Inconsistency can be misleading because a too consistent story is suspicious in itself because it suggests fabrication and coaching. However, juries will not generally realise this. All they will see is the contradictions in evidence).

Would all this mean that no one would be convicted simply on Dobson’s testimony? Sadly, no. The trial of Dobson and Norris was severely flawed both because it was impossible for the two defendants to get a fair trial because of the intensive political and media hate campaign directed at the pair for 18 years and because of the feeble new forensic evidence which was the justification for the trial. The full details of that trial can be found at  Because of the politicisation of this case  it is not unreasonable to suspect a prosecution on Dobson’s evidence alone would be made and convictions gained from a jury simply because of the background to the case. Let us hope that is not the case.


This entry was posted in Immigration and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to The Stephen Lawrence killing: Are we in for more legally rickety convictions?

  1. Harry J says:

    I can’t for the life of me remember where I read it but it seems that Dobson has merely moved the appeal to the European Court due to his lack of faith in the British justice system.

  2. Peter Cole says:

    Our parliament did not abolish the rack and the thumb screw so that imprisonment could be used to induce a person to talk.

  3. david brown says:

    One reason Dobson is now admitting his role in the murder is that he did take part. Hope i do not get called a troll , but i have always thought the five suspects where the perps. Unless we are advocating ethnic cleansing the Lawerence family had a right to justice. The two Acourts had previously against the evidence been aquited of a non fatal stabbing Turkish guy. At the time and this case it was said their father , than a wealth drug baron, used his money and connections to corrupt cops to get them off. What has been wrong with the Lawerence case is that way it has been used as a weapon against our society by England ‘s enemies. Many more white people are murderd by black men than the other way round. Most blacks who are murdered are killed by blacks.

    Another reason Dobson may be doing this is to be moved ,in return, to a safer jail. One that is with few black prisoners. Where is he currently held. While on remand at Belmarsh, which has very high ethnic population David Norris was almost murderd. Four black muslim converts filled prison issue socks with tuna cans from the jail canteen and beat Norris severally . Wonder what happened to them – bet they where not charged with attempted murder

    • wanderer says:

      I think you’ll find ethnic cleansing the only solution in the long run. Nations [I’m assuming you know what a nation is] don’t survive long without their own territory. The problem is simply one of relocation in actuality, and needn’t involve violence necessarily, but probably will. What you tolerate you get more of, and what you refuse to defend gets taken from you. There is always the faint stench of christian piety behind irrational comments like this, possibly because christianity is the only religion willing to excuse English cowardice and call it virtue.

  4. David Brown says:

    wanderer – this sounds like racial Darwinism of the past eg H.G Wells and Jack London.

    When Enoch Powell, who wrote a book for a Christian publishing company , made a speech
    after his so called “rivers of blood” he called for repatriation. Malcolm Muggeridge wrote to The Times, saying Lincoln had advocated the same. That mass-immigration was part of the great liberal death wish.

    i have no firm view on this but as the Christian religion has vanished in much of the west its seems so has belief in the nation state. Liberalism as a humanist substitute religion filling the vacuum , much as football has for the white working class. As General Dennet, a Christian said predatory Islam is waiting to fill the spiritual vacum.

  5. maverick says:

    David Brown ,you are of course right that the 5 accused were the probale perpatrators,but to break al previous known legal precepts and try the suspects TWICE!.Which I belive breaks all previous legal precepts,which goes along way to proving this was a political rather than legal conviction.
    Do you remember P.C. Keith Blacelock and how he was murdered by decapitation,several witnesses stated that Winston Sillcott was carrying a bloodied machete over the body of the dead P.C.,Several years later these same witnesses said they saw nothing and hey presto a “miscarriage” of justice .Do you think “justice ” was done here?.Similarily several victims of terrorism or ethnic murders on mainly English people by the I.R.A. or other hostile groups have been forgotten .If you cannot see that this only works one way then you cannot see where all this is leading ,then it is pointless trying to explain it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s