The hammer attack on schoolboy Henry Webster was not racially motivated, a Swindon police detective said.

Inspector Mark Wilkinson – who headed the Operation Dakota investigation into the January 2007 attack at the Ridgeway Foundation School – was testifying in the High Court hearing in which Henry Webster claims £1 million damages.

Henry’s mother, Elizabeth Webster, earlier told the court in London she was dismayed when the Asian men prosecuted over the attack on her son were not charged with a racial offence.

And before Ins Wilkinson stepped into the witness box Robert Glancy QC, for Henry Webster, urged Mr Justice Nicol to exclude part of his witness statement relating to whether or not it was a racially motivated assault.

In his witness statement, Ins Wilkinson said: “I understand it is suggested that the attack on Henry Webster was racially motivated.

“I disagree with that entirely; the investigation carried out throughout Operation Dakota did not support the theory that this incident was racially motivated.”

Mr Justice Nicol, allowing in the disputed evidence, said Mr Glancy had objected to this part of Ins Wilkinson’s testimony on grounds that it was merely his “opinion”.

However, Ridgeway School’s QC, Ronald Walker, argued the witness’ evidence was “a summary of the product of the police investigation which the inspector led”.

The judge concluded that Ins Wilkinson’s testimony was not mere “opinion evidence” and that Mr Glancy would have ample scope to challenge that evidence.

The school disputes that the attack on Henry was racially motivated, but Mr Glancy insisted that this aspect, although “important”, is not the cornerstone of Henry’s case.

Later, launching into his cross-examination of Ins Wilkinson, the QC questioned him about the attack and reports that some of the intruders who surged into the school tennis courts area to confront Henry were yelling out the phrase “Paki-bashers” as they approached.

Minutes later, when the gang ran from the scene of the outrage, he said one attacker was heard to shout out, “this is Paki-bashing”, which Mr Glancy suggested could have been a “reversal” of the phrase’s normal meaning.

He put to Ins Wilkinson: “It follows that what appears to have been inspiring these men to inflict this violence was the feeling that someone had been attacking Pakistani people, or insulting them, and that they were effecting their revenge?”

“No,” said Ins Wilkinson.

But the QC reiterated his claims that the intruders were seeking “their particular form of revenge for what they saw as aggression or hostility towards an Asian pupil”.

Ins Wilkinson said he “could not comment” on that, but added: “From my knowledge, the evidence I gathered did not suggest there was any link to any previous Pakistani boy being assaulted”.

He accepted, however, that Henry was “identified as a victim” because of incidents earlier that day at school.

“The evidence suggested that it was because he stood up to (an Asian pupil)”, said the witness, who added that the boy involved in the earlier confrontation with Henry had used a mobile phone to contact his relatives and summon outside help. Ins Wilkinson’s evidence came at the start of the fourth week of Henry's damages claim against the over the hammer attack that almost cost him his life and left him seriously brain damaged.

The school denies all blame for the attack on Henry and also denies the attack was racially motivated.

The hearing continues.