A case for Satpal Ram
Mike Ching

Back in the day, there was always something ultra-cool about the way Flavor Flav carried himself. It was as if he had found a secret. It didnít matter if it was the wall clock hanging around his neck or the way the angle of his ballcap seemed to be in the most visually pleasing degree, his style seemed to constantly mock us - us, the uncool, the uninformed. Public Enemy was more than just another rap group flaunting fashionable ghetto bravado, Public Enemy had a message. A message that made listeners aware of relevant issues, issues like discrimination and police brutality. In the same way, Asian Dub Foundation, the self-styled British collective, attempts to follow the path pioneered by Public Enemy with the song "Free Satpal Ram". But who is Satpal Ram?

On November 16, 1986, Satpal Ram, a British man of East Indian descent, sat peacefully at the Sky Blue restaurant in Birmingham, England. During his meal, Mr. Ram was attacked by a group of six white people. Initially, the unprovoked attack began with a verbal assault. The attack escalated to physical violence when the men started to throw glasses. One of the men went over to Satpalís table, broke a glass, and stabbed Satpal in the face. After being pushed back, he again stabbed Satpal in the face and arms. The man stood 6'2 and weighed 202 pounds against Satpal, who was 5'11 and weighed 142 pounds.

He had no way to escape. Satpal was afraid for his life. Satpal defended himself using a small knife he had used for work. In the ensuing attack, both men were injured and taken to the hospital. Satpal received stitches for his wounds, while his attacker refused medical treatment and later died.

The injuries to Satpal were further complicated by the inept conduct of his barrister, Douglas Draycott, who met him only once for 40 minutes a few days before the trial. He had changed Satpalís plea of self-defense to provocation, and did not call Satpal as a witness at his own trial. The key independent witness for the defense, the restaurantís Bengali speaking waiters, were called to the stand, but with no appropriate interpreters. During the course of the trial, Judge Ognall appeared to accept Satpalís defense of provocation when he commented to the jury, "It is a small matter for you, but you may think that in those circumstances for you to reach a different conclusion (from provocation) would be fanciful to a degree." An all- white jury found Satpal guilty of murder largely on the evidence of those same racists that had initiated the attack. After his conviction for murder, the trial judge expressed surprise at the verdict, accepting that Satpal had been attacked.

After an unsuccessful appeal, the Lord Chief Justice at the time, Lord Lane made a recommendation that Satpal should serve 10 years in prison. Satpal is currently serving his 12th year of incarceration. Since his conviction, Satpal has consistently declared his innocence of the charge of murder. Satpal believes he was wrongly advised and poorly represented by his barrister at the trial. He believes if the jury had viewed the circumstances of the incident through a defense of self-defense, they would have rendered a "not-guilty" verdict.

Satpal's belief in his innocence has prompted rough treatment from the hands of the Prison Service. During the past four years, Satpal has been subjected to the ěcontinual assessmentî program, a program requiring him to be moved from one prison to another after a period of 28 days. During his incarceration, Satpal has been moved 54 times and has spent much of his time in segregation. His visits have also been severely restricted. This in turn, has severely limited the opportunities for Satpal to take up courses, work, do volunteer work and develop positive relationships while in prison.

As a result of his continual movement, Satpal cannot be accurately assessed by the parole board. This was acknowledged by the parole board in 1997 after they had put back his Parole Review for two years to December 12, 1999. In their rejection letter, the Parole Board admitted the constant moving of Satpal is not helping him and recommended Satpal be allowed to stay in one institution for a significant period of time. Since this recommendation, Satpal has been moved four times.

Satpal Ram is at a disadvantage not only because of his unjust criminal conviction, but his conviction that he is innocent of the crime for which he is sentenced. The Parole Board runs assessments on the basis of risk re-offending. When one asserts their innocence they are not allowed to participate in what is deemed, "offending behaviour work." Because Satpal has not participated in offending behaviour work, his risk of re-offending, according to the Parole Board, remains high. Therefore parole is out of the question.

The case of Satpal Ram is indeed a tragic one. Yet, Satpal's story also reveals to us something beyond the normal tale of oppression, it shows injustice can occur anywhere. Injustice can occur anywhere regardless of geography, economic status or culture. While it may comfort us to think that only grave injustices occur only within the context of the third world, we can plainly see that this is not so. Clearly, injustices occur in first world nations as well. Before we impulsively criticize, think clearly, think thoroughly, because another Satpal Ram could be in a jail near you.