REPORT OF AN INDEPENDENT INQUIRY ... - Hundred Families

40
Chapter 6 – The Metropolitan Police Service
1. Chandran’s family had become increasingly concerned about his behaviour. Biju Ramkrishn said
that, from about the time of his conviction, he seemed to be becoming ill again and, whilst Mrs
Ramkrishnan, Sulekha Jaykumar (and very possibly Narayanan Sukumaran) had been reluctant
to report incidents of violence or possible violence, this was not so for other family members as
2001 progressed.
2. From the records supplied to us by the Metropolitan Police Service, we learned that one of his
family made a 999 call on 12th September 2001. According to the CAD message for this call, the
informant was described as wanting to visit his uncle who had heart trouble but his son was
refusing him entry to the property. The police rang the number of the flat and tried to speak to
somebody who answered the telephone but did not speak English. We assume that this was
Narayanan Sukumaran. No disturbance was heard in the background so that the police left a
message on the answerphone of their informant advising “them to contact us if they still require
our assistance”. The police made a further telephone call to the property and Narayanan
Sukumaran appears to have answered that call. Again, no disturbance was heard in the
background.
3. On the same day, Chandran assaulted Gopalan Jaykumar, his brother-in-law. We understand this
assault to have involved Chandran twisting his arm and wrist.
4. On Saturday 27th October 2001, Narayanan Sukumaran went to East Ham Police Station
accompanied by Sulekha Jaykumar, Gopalan Jaykumar and their daughter. Narayanan
Sukumaran did not want the police to be told that Chandran had done anything wrong but he was
concerned about his son and wanted medical help for him. It appears that the family spoke to a
police officer for about half an hour. However, no police record of this visit was kept and
Superintendent Smalley told the Inquiry Panel that the police had been unable to identify the
police officer to whom the family spoke. The description of the officer given to the police did not
match the officer on duty on the front desk who, we were told, had no recollection of talking to
the family in any event.
5. The family handed two documents to the police officer: a copy of the Court record of Chandran’s
conviction for the assault in W.H. Smith (which, of course, showed that he was subject to the
supervision of a Probation Officer) and a letter written by Gopalan Jaykumar on Narayanan
Sukumaran’s behalf. This letter was about Chandran and contained the following:-
“I have to inform you about my son ... he is a mentaly (sic) person.
“Now he is not taking medication so his condition is very bad and at any time he can become
violent.
“I am 78 years old and I am scared when he visit (sic) my house. I am a patient with two times
By Pass surgery. I can’t even manage alone to do my needs. My daughter and family ... are
coming regularly and helping me. But he is threatening them also. My humble request is I
need Police help to admit my son in Hospital for immediate medication for his better health.
My another request is this report has to be confidential .... “