No5 Chambers Hosts Debate Considering UK Role In Golden Temple Attack

BIRMINGHAM, UK—Earlier this month, No5 Chambers hosted a debate considering the role of the UK government in the 1984 attack on the Golden Temple in Amritsar, Punjab.

Darbar Hamandir Sahib (Golden Temple)
Darbar Hamandir Sahib (Golden Temple)

Named India Golden Temple: What Happens Next?, the event was chaired by Ekwall Singh Tiwana, a barrister in No5’s crime group, and featured a number of speakers. These were Talbir Singh and Brian Dean, both of No5, investigative journalist Robert Verkaik, and Tom Watson MP of the Labour Party.

A question-and-answer session followed the presentations. Delegate Jo Sidhu QC of 25 Bedford Row, and joint chair of the Society of Asian Lawyers, said that it had been an extremely informative, and productive event.

Tom Watson MP said: ‘[The event] showcased the immense legal firepower that can be deployed by the Sikh community to forensically examine the form that an inquiry could take. The Heywood review is at best flawed, and all here are agreed that all political parties should commit an inquiry and, should the election intervene, all parties should include holding a public inquiry in their manifestos.’

On 1 March, No5 Chambers hosted a debate considering the role of the UK government in the 1984 attack on the Golden Temple in Amritsar, Punjab, India.

Named ‘India Golden Temple: What Happens Next?’, the event was chaired by Ekwall Singh Tiwana, a barrister in No5’s crime group, and featured a number of speakers. These were Talbir Singh and Brian Dean, both of No5, investigative journalist Robert Verkaik and Tom Watson MP of the Labour Party.

A question-and-answer session followed the presentations. Delegate Jo Sidhu QC of 25 Bedford Row and joint chair of the Society of Asian Lawyers said that it had been an extremely informative and productive event.  

Tom Watson MP said: ‘[The event] showcased the immense legal firepower that can be deployed by the Sikh community to forensically examine the form that an inquiry could take. The Heywood review is at best flawed and all here are agreed that all political parties should commit an inquiry and, should the election intervene, all parties should include holding a public inquiry in their manifestos.’

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here