The father of Stephen Lawrence has issued a heartfelt plea for one of his son’s killers to reveal the names of all those responsible – as the convicted murderer is set to make a bid for his freedom.
David Norris, 48, had always denied being involved in the 1993 murder of the teenager. But in March, it was revealed that Norris had a change of heart and ‘accepted he was present at the scene.’
He also admitted to punching the 18-year-old, but claimed he did not ‘wield the knife’ during the fatal stabbing incident at a bus stop in Eltham, south-east London, on April 22, 1993.
Only Norris and Gary Dobson, 49, two of the original five prime suspects, were convicted in connection with Stephen’s killing.
Both were found guilty under the law of joint enterprise, which allows people to be convicted of murder even if they did not inflict the fatal blow.
It has never been proven who stabbed Stephen, who suffered two knife wounds, or whether more than one knife was used.
Now ahead of Norris’ public parole hearing next week, Neville Lawrence, 83, is urging the killer to reveal exactly what happened on that fateful day.
Speaking to The Mirror, Mr Lawrence said: ‘My message to him would be, “You have served so many years in prison, you’ve known what you did was wrong and you refused to give the information in the early days about all the other boys that were involved”.
‘I need you to say exactly who was there with you that night because we now know that you were there’.
He added it felt ‘unfair’ if Norris succeeds in his parole, because he will be able to walk out of prison and live his ‘everyday’ life again.
Mr Lawrence said: ‘My son will never be able to do that because he’s dead and it’s because of these people that robbed me of my son.’
In March, Parole Board vice chairman Peter Rook KC announced Norris had changed his stance on his involvement.
‘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.
‘He does not accept he holds racist views.’
In a major victory for the Mail and the Lawrence family, Norris’ parole hearing will be heard in public.
Norris fought against such an application from this newspaper, arguing that having the hearing in the open to do so would increase the risk to his safety.
But Mr Rook ruled that his case should be made in public, and in his judgement quoted extensively from an application made by the Mail which argued that without press scrutiny it is unlikely that Stephen’s killers would have faced justice.
Five men were initially arrested over the murder, in Eltham, southeast London, with Norris, 16 at the time, and Gary Dobson, 16 then but 49 now, only brought to justice after a belated forensic breakthrough.
Both were given life sentences in 2012.
It followed a lengthy campaign from the Mail to secure justice for Stephen, including a 1997 front page in which Norris was named as one of his killers.
The application to the Parole Board also quoted from a recent interview with Stephen’s father, Neville, in which the 82-year-old said he would be willing to accept Norris’s release from prison if he apologised and showed he was a changed man.
The Mail argued that a public hearing would provide the killer with the platform to properly express remorse for his actions.
The Lawrence family supported a public hearing but lawyers for Norris argued that the murderer, who has been diagnosed with PTSD, would suffer from ’emotional stress’ should a hearing be held in public.
They also argued that it would increase the risk to his safety within the prison estate, given he has been attacked three times while incarcerated, and that he would be incapable of giving his ‘best evidence’ should his remarks be made public.
But Mr Rook found that the case remained of public importance because of its impact on policing, that it was accepted that not all those involved have been brought to justice and that the public will be interested to know whether Norris now accepts his responsibility for Stephen’s murder.
The criminal justice system had clearly failed with regard to this case at earlier stages, he said, with the subsequent MacPherson report into the investigation making multiple recommendations still relevant today.
‘There is a clear public interest in seeing the Parole Review conducted in a proper judicial manner with evidence-based decisions on risk,’ Mr Rook said.
Norris’s time in prison has not been without issues that will likely count against him when the panel makes its decision.
He was caught illegally using a smartphone in jail in 2022, which he used to take a sickening selfie from his cell on Dartmoor’s E wing, which houses supposedly well-behaved inmates.
The phone was recovered from his body after he was X-rayed and a police investigation into how he obtained the device was launched.
A date is yet to be set for the hearing.
Stephen’s father called on Norris to name his son’s other killers and tell the truth about what happened on the night of his murder for the first time.
During an interview from his home in Jamaica in March, Mr Lawrence thanked the Daily Mail for its fight to ensure his parole hearing would be heard in public.
‘Thank you to the Daily Mail for doing this service for us,’ he said.
‘Without your appeal this would have stayed behind closed doors.’
Mr Lawrence added: ‘If he’s going to make a statement the public will hopefully finally hear everything that happened.
‘He knows who was there with him.
‘And he has been in prison for all this time so it’s his chance to say it wasn’t just him alone, there were others with him. And name them.
‘I don’t think he’s going to do that but that’s what I want him to do.
‘This is his chance to come clean and confess to what happened that night.’
Mr Lawrence said he planned to attend the hearing and his solicitor would read a statement outlining the effect Stephen’s murder has had on the family.
‘He’s going to be able to walk away and live the rest of his life if he behaves himself.
‘Stephen can’t do that,’ he said.
‘I feel if someone is lucky enough to have that chance for parole they should have to say I’m sorry, I’ll never get into trouble again and they should have to admit what they did.
‘If he admits it and said how sorry he was and he names the other people I could accept him coming out.
‘No one who was there that night has ever told the truth about what happened or even admitted the fact that they were there.
‘If he does do that it will be the first time.
‘If he admits he was there and caused my son to lose his life I would accept what happened and it would make it seem to me he was a changed person but if he just says nothing I can’t accept [his release].’