Met Police defends drill lyrics use in criminal cases

The Metropolitan Police has defended its practice of using drill music lyrics as evidence in criminal cases, following calls for legal restrictions. The force argues such material is necessary to secure convictions for serious offences.

Scale of Use

A report by the Centre on the Dynamics of Ethnicity revealed that drill rap lyrics were presented as evidence against 252 defendants between 2020 and 2023. The police stated that if individuals disclose true or criminal information within their music, that material will be used in court proceedings.

Campaign for Restrictions

The campaign group Art Not Evidence, comprising lawyers and academics, is urging the government to change the law. They advocate for a presumption that "creative expression" should not be admissible evidence. The group argues that drill lyrics are often used to depict "gang aesthetics" which are misinterpreted by those unfamiliar with the genre's culture. They contend this practice contributes to racial disparities in the justice system and stifles freedom of expression.

Det Sgt Matt Corbin, who acts as a police expert on drill music in court, stated it is "important" for the force to use this material. He acknowledged the debate surrounding artistic expression, adding that the police do not intend to "demonise any particular genre of music" and that lyrics should not be "overused" in court.

Justice for Victims

Valentina Locci, whose 15-year-old son Leonardo Reid was killed in Islington, north London, by gang members, supported the use of drill lyrics in court. She stated that lyrics referencing a person's death are "the most horrifying thing" for a victim's family to encounter. Locci added, "If it's OK for you to write about a dead person then it should be OK for us to use them [the lyrics] in court to help bring justice."

A spokesperson for Art Not Evidence welcomed the Metropolitan Police's acknowledgement of the need for care when presenting rap and drill music evidence to juries. However, they questioned the sufficiency of current safeguards, stating that creative expression is still used in ways that invite prejudicial assumptions about criminality or gang membership, often with limited relevance to the offence being tried. The group called for "clear statutory safeguards" to ensure music is only used when it is "genuinely relevant, reliable and not unduly prejudicial."