Cliff Notes
- David Norris, one of Stephen Lawrence’s killers, reportedly accepted his presence at the murder scene but denies wielding the knife, according to the Parole Board.
- The Parole Board approved a public hearing for Norris’s potential early release, valuing public interest over concerns for his emotional distress and safety.
- The ongoing public interest in the case is linked to the failings and racism highlighted in the 1999 Macpherson report, prompting a need for transparency in the proceedings.
Stephen Lawrence killer David Norris ‘admits role in attack’, says Parole Board | UK News
Reports suggest one of Stephen Lawrence’s killers has accepted he was at the scene of the murder but claims he did not wield the knife, the Parole Board has said.
The board made the disclosure as it agreed a hearing on freeing David Norris should take place in public.
The racist murder of Mr Lawrence, 18, is one of the most notorious cases of modern times.
He was killed in an unprovoked attack by a gang of five or six white youths as he waited to catch a bus in Eltham, southeast London, in April 1993.
Norris, now 48, was one of only two people, alongside Gary Dobson, to be jailed for the murder in 2012.
His minimum jail term expired in December and he’s now set to be considered for release on licence.
As part of the background to the case, the Parole Board said Norris had continued to deny the offence after his trial.
However, it said he appeared to have changed his story.
“Recent reports now suggest he has accepted he was present at the scene and punched the victim but claims that he did not wield the knife,” said the board’s vice chair Peter Rook KC.
“He does not accept he holds racist views.”
The nature of the reports is not detailed by the Parole Board.
The board said Norris had been diagnosed with PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder) after several assaults on him in prison.
Norris’s solicitors argued that holding his hearing in public would increase the risk he faces and said he would “suffer additional emotional distress”, the board added.
Among other objections, his lawyers said there was “no good reason” to depart from the usual protocol of private hearings – and that Norris wouldn’t be able to give his “best evidence” in public.
The board disagreed and approved the media request – supported by Stephen’s parents – to hold it in the open.
Mr Rook said Norris’s psychological reports had been considered, but were trumped by factors such as the ongoing public interest in the case.
He said this interest remained high due to the failings and racism that marred the case – detailed in the 1999 Macpherson report.
“I have concluded that it is in the interests of justice for there to be a public hearing in this case,” he wrote.
“The compelling factors in favour of a public hearing outweigh the points raised on Mr Norris’ behalf. I am satisfied that the Parole Board’s ability to carry out its core functions will not be compromised by this hearing being in public.”
A date for the hearing has still to be set.
