Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Sun Apr 05, 2009 9:21 pm Post subject: Ian Tomlinson dies at G20 demo - IPCC investigation
Policed accused of hitting man who died during London G20 protest
Richard Ford, Home Correspondent
Police hit the man who died during the G20 summit protests with a baton after he had been thrown to the ground, according to a witness to the incident.
Another witness claims to have seen Ian Tomlinson being pushed from behind before falling and hitting his head on the ground.
Today investigators from the Independent Police Complaints Commission will examine press photographs and are expected to seek any other pictures of the collapse and sudden death of Mr Tomlinson near the Bank of England in the City of London on Wednesday night. A police post-mortem examination found that Mr Tomlinson, 47, who was not taking part in the protest, died of natural causes.
Anna Branthwaite, a photographer, gave a detailed statement to City of London Police yesterday in which she described how Mr Tomlinson was rushed from behind and hit with a police baton. She told The Times: “I saw a riot police officer rushing towards him from behind and grabbing hold of him from behind and charging with him. He [the officer] grabbed him by the scruff of the neck and used his own body to propel him forward.”......
Exclusive footage obtained by the Guardian shows Ian Tomlinson, who died during G20 protests in London, was attacked from behind by baton–wielding police officer
* Paul Lewis
* guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 7 April 2009 17.53 BST
* Article history
The Guardian obtained this footage of Ian Tomlinson at a G20 protest in London, shortly before he died. It shows Tomlinson, who was not part of the demonstration, being assaulted from behind and pushed to the ground by baton-wielding police Link to this video
Dramatic footage obtained by the Guardian shows that the man who died at last week's G20 protests in London was attacked from behind and thrown to the ground by a baton–wielding police officer in riot gear.
Moments after the assault on Ian Tomlinson was captured on video, he suffered a heart attack and died.
The Guardian is preparing to hand a dossier of evidence to the police complaints watchdog.
It sheds new light on the events surrounding the death of the 47-year-old newspaper seller, who had been on his way home from work when he was confronted by lines of riot police near the Bank of England.
The submission to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) includes a collection of testimonies from witnesses, along with the video footage, shot at around 7.20pm, which shows Tomlinson at Royal Exchange Passage.
The film reveals that as he walks, with his hands in his pockets, he does not speak to the police or offer any resistance.
A phalanx of officers, some with dogs and some in riot gear, are close behind him and try to urge him forward.
A Metropolitan police officer appears to strike him with a baton, hitting him from behind on his upper thigh.
Moments later, the same policeman rushes forward and, using both hands, pushes Tomlinson in the back and sends him flying to the ground, where he remonstrates with police who stand back, leaving bystanders to help him to his feet.
The man who shot the footage, a fund manager from New York who was in London on business, said: "The primary reason for me coming forward is that it was clear the family were not getting any answers."
The Guardian's dossier also includes a sequence of photographs, taken by three different people, showing the aftermath of the attack, as well as witness statements from people in the area at the time.
A number of witnesses provided time and date-stamped photographs that substantiate their accounts.
Some said they saw police officers attack Tomlinson.
Witnesses said that, prior to the moment captured on video, he had already been hit with batons and thrown to the floor by police who blocked his route home.
One witness, Anna Branthwaite, a photographer, described how, in the minutes before the video was shot, she saw Tomlinson walking towards Cornhill Street.
"A riot police officer had already grabbed him and was pushing him," she said.
"It wasn't just pushing him – he'd rushed him. He went to the floor and he did actually roll. That was quite noticeable.
"It was the force of the impact. He bounced on the floor. It was a very forceful knocking down from behind. The officer hit him twice with a baton when he was lying on the floor.
"So it wasn't just that the officer had pushed him – it became an assault.
"And then the officer picked him up from the back, continued to walk or charge with him, and threw him.
"He was running and stumbling. He didn't turn and confront the officer or anything like that."
The witness accounts contradict the official version of events given by police.
In an official statement on the night of Tomlinson's death, the Metropolitan police made no reference to any contact with officers and simply described attempts by police medics and an ambulance crew to save his life after he collapsed – efforts they said were marred by protesters throwing missiles as first aid was administered .
The force said officers had created a cordon around Tomlinson to give him CPR.
"The officers took the decision to move him as during this time a number of missiles - believed to be bottles - were being thrown at them," it said.
Yesterday, the IPCC began managing an investigation by City of London police into the circumstances of Tomlinson's death after the Guardian published photographs of him on the ground and witness statements indicated he had been assaulted by police officers.
The IPCC commissioner for London, Deborah Glass, said: "Initially, we had accounts from independent witnesses who were on Cornhill, who told us that there had been no contact between the police and Mr Tomlinson when he collapsed."
"However, other witnesses who saw him in the Royal Exchange area have since told us that Mr Tomlinson did have contact with police officers.
"This would have been a few minutes before he collapsed. It is important that we are able to establish as far as possible whether that contact had anything to do with his death."
The IPCC added that Tomlinson was captured on CCTV walking onto Royal Exchange Passage.
"This is the aspect of the incident that the IPCC is now investigating," it said.
It was here the video was shot. A post mortem carried out by a Home Office pathologist last Friday revealed Tomlinson died of a heart attack.
Prior to seeing the dossier of evidence, Tomlinson's family said in a statement: "There were so many people around where Ian died, and so many people with cameras, that somebody must have seen what happened in the Royal Exchange passageway.
"We need to know what happened there and whether it had anything to do with Ian's death.
"We know that some people who were at the protest may not feel comfortable talking to the police.
Posted: Wed Apr 08, 2009 10:18 am Post subject: Video Exclusive. Man Dies At G20 Protest was Pushed By Cop
A video has been released of a cop pushing a man to the ground who minutes later died of an heart attack. Newspaper vendor Ian Tomlinson, 47, was walking home from work when this vicious thug hit him in the back of the legs with a baton, and shoved him to the ground. Minutes later he was dying from a fatal heart attack. We are moving ever faster into a fascist police, and the Home Office are protecting this murdering scum. Remember the death of Jean Charles de Menezes? Another innocent man shot by cops. No charges brought there too. When are we going to sit up and tell the government? enough is enough! We are all at risk from these bullying and murdering thugs.
Joined: 31 Jan 2007 Posts: 296 Location: Halifax, West Yorkshire
Posted: Wed Apr 15, 2009 4:28 pm Post subject: Further G20 IPCC investigation as police officer suspended
Officer suspended over allegations of G20 violence
Report from ITN News, 15 April 2009
Quote:
A police sergeant's been suspended after new footage showing the officer appearing to strike out at a woman in the G20 protests came to light.. Follow us on twitter at http://twitter.com/itn_on
Yeh great - it's so easy to nick the pawns (or *ACPO-recruited thugs in this case) but who directed them to be so out-of-order disproportionately aggresive?
As a comparison from personal experience, I can fairly state that the notorious Czech police in Prague during the World Bank/IMF protest were nowhere near as outrageous on the streets as this bunch at the G20 - in the cells might be a different matter but even that is now well overdue for a public inquiry in the UK!
CCTV in the Met cells is becoming a must. Use their own tools to regulate them. Perhaps we have arrived at an answer to 'Quis custodiet ipsos custodes'?
Life After the G20
Rampart Collective
http://info.interactivist.net/node/12540
On the Thursday following the G20 protests, two squatted social centres in East London were raided by riot police, apparently looking for instigators of the attacks on the Royal Bank of Scotland. RampART Social Centre, which has existed for more than four years, and a newly opened Convergence Centre in Earl Street were both being used to house and feed protesters throughout the period of the G20 summit. In both cases, the police acted illegally but, other than a brief report in the Independent which referred to unwarranted violence, the raids remained largely unreported. In both buildings, people were subjected to physical violence and verbal abuse and those that were arrested were later 'de-arrested' for lack of any supporting evidence. Our only 'crime', it seems, is that we are political activists and squatters and thus deemed to be suitable targets. If only we had kept our heads down and stayed away from these kinds of activities, the logic goes, we would not deserve what we had coming.
It is right and proper that the events leading up to the death of Ian Tomlinson should be the subject of a criminal investigation but the danger, as we see it, is that it will be seen as an isolated incident and will be dealt with simply by disciplining individual officers, only serving to further obscure the role of the police in perpetuating a climate of fear. Under the terms of the global surveillance state, citizenship has become an exercise in evading a charge of deviance. In fact, the proliferation of forms of deviance is the flip side of the supposed 'lifestyle choices' available under the terms of consumer citizenship. You can 'choose' to spend your money on home improvements, high fashion and high-tech gadgets and are applauded for making the 'right' choices. But if you choose to occupy an unused building for the purposes of providing space for political discussion, self-education and creative activities without the intrusion of CCTV cameras, health and safety monitoring or access restrictions, and particularly if you refuse to levy a charge which situates these activities in terms of market forces, then you effectively become outlaw.. And, if you choose to express your outrage at a system that produces inequalities and then condemns those that become unemployed and homeless, you become a target for repression. The differences between Tomlinson and the people who went to the Bank of England to demonstrate against the iniquitous excesses of neoliberal capitalism are marginal, despite attempts to distinguish between 'innocent' bystanders and 'guilty' protesters. Tomlinson was on his way home from work. The demonstrators were exercising their lawful right to protest. Both were exercising their right to the city as citizens of a supposed democracy
When RampART social centre was raided on the Thursday, members of the volunteer collective were sitting down to a cup of coffee and biscuits. Other members were elsewhere in the building speaking to some guests who had come to stay for the duration of the protests. We were aware of the massing of officers outside the building but were used to the presence of a Forward Intelligence Team, the police paparazzi,who had been frequent visitors to Rampart Street in the weeks leading up to the G20, photographing and scrutinising anyone entering the building. And so, for us, it was business as usual.
At the Convergence Centre, the police seemed to be employing a new tactic whereby people being searched before entering the building had their mobile phones confiscated and were threatened with arrest unless they could 'prove ownership'. Essentially, this amounted to an attempt to illegally secure personal details.
The raid itself was surreal. Or rather, it was hyperreal, in the sense that, as some of us commented later, it was like being on the wrong side of a 'first person shooter' video game. Some of us thought the men and women in balaclavas, padded uniforms, helmets and carrying riot shields were pointing toy guns at us. In fact, as we discovered later, they were tasers, which are designed to stun but are occasionally known to kill.
It's tempting to say that the violence that we experienced was out of all proportion to the level of resistance which was, in fact, zero. But to even speak of proportionality is a mistake, because it implies that there is something in our actions that warrants a violent response. One member of the collective was punched in the face, another was pushed downstairs, had his head smashed against the wall and was met with looks of disbelief when he pleaded with officers to protect his glasses. One of the residents of the building was punched and kicked, narrowly avoided taser fire and was arrested in his pyjamas.
We would stress again that this happened to people who, like Ian Tomlinson, were simply exercising their most basic civil rights: to congregate peacefully with friends and to walk the streets unmolested. Some might think that we are opportunistically linking what happened to us with Tomlinson, and would want to make a clear distinction. After all, he was a regular bloke in the wrong place at the wrong time, and we were deliberately taking part in political activism. But to continue in this vein is lose all semblance of what it means to live with even a modicum of freedom and self-respect.
The press reported that four (and, in some reports, six) arrests had been made during the raids on RampART and the Convergence Space. Two known to us personally were held in police cells for up to ten hours, had their clothes confiscated and were sent home in Guantanamo Bay style boiler suits. News of arrests functions to assuage anxiety and to justify the cost of police operations that amount to little more than exercises in public relations. The public can rest assured that the dangerous anarchists have been infiltrated and detained and that 'scroungers' and 'cheats' have been brought to book.
Comparisons have inevitably been made between Tomlinson's death and the death of Blair Peach during an Anti-Nazi League demonstration in April, 1979, widely speculated to be as a result of assault by the police. Although Peach's brother reached an out-of-court settlement with the Metropolitan Police in 1989, no officer was ever charged in connection with the death. Thirty years later, the same police force has been granted unprecedented powers in the name of 'security' and justified on the basis that London is under threat from elements in the population that threaten 'our' way of life. The result is the proliferation of deviant identities which function as a focus for collective anxiety and paranoia ('terrorists', 'anarchists', 'squatters', 'foreign workers' etc.).
Since the incidents on the 1st and 2nd of April, voices have been raised in condemnation of police actions, particularly the tactic of “kettling” which herds protesters like cattle and allows the police to punish those who attempt to escape. Back at RampART on the Wednesday evening we saw the resulting head injuries and beaten bodies If we are to avoid more deaths and injury, then we need to think seriously, not only about the powers granted to a police force that seems dangerously out of control but about the ideology that sanctions violence in the name of respectability. We need to think about what it means to be a citizen in 21st century global culture and about the treatment of those that effectively have their human rights revoked because they refuse, or are unable to conform to the dictates of consumer citizenship. We need, in short, to be aware that, as the global downturn deprives people of their homes and livelihoods, any one of us could end up on the wrong side of the divide that separates 'us' from 'them'. Any one of us could become a scapegoat for the unfocused anger which results when people relinquish responsibility for their own lives and then find themselves deprived of their freedom and dignity. Places like RampART exist because some of us believe that we can reclaim our freedoms but only if we work together in a spirit of mutual respect and toleration.
Contact: rampart@mutualaid.org _________________ 'Come and see the violence inherent in the system.
Help, help, I'm being repressed!'
“The more you tighten your grip, the more Star Systems will slip through your fingers.”
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 11:40 pm Post subject:
And amazing the power of the camera.
A new inquest.
Ken Livingstone saying we can't trust the Home Office pathologist - cop now interviewed on a manslaughter charge.
Why not murder?
Was he told to do this kind of thuggish act in the pre riot briefing?
Disco_Destroyer wrote:
Off Twitter no other details
Quote:
Meeting to discuss beyond Meltdown. Thursday 23rd April 6.30pm Whitechapel Gallery (77-82 Whitechapel High St, E1, nr Aldgate East tube)
G20 death caused by abdominal haemorrhage --G20 policeman's manslaughter probe 17 Apr 2009 Ian Tomlinson died at the G20 protests from an "abdominal haemorrhage", a second post-mortem concludes. The newspaper vendor, who was filmed by Channel 4 News coming into contact with police at the G20 protests on 1 April, was first thought to have died from a heart attack. But the second post-mortem examination contradicted these findings, Tomlinson's family solicitor said today, creating further questions over the role of the police in his death. The policeman filmed appearing to strike out at 47-year-old Tomlinson has now been questioned under caution for manslaughter.
http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/society/law_order/g20+policemans +manslaughter+probe/3094582 http://www.legitgov.org/ _________________ 'Come and see the violence inherent in the system.
Help, help, I'm being repressed!'
“The more you tighten your grip, the more Star Systems will slip through your fingers.”
Posted: Wed Apr 22, 2009 11:19 pm Post subject: Injunction fails - Channel 4 News footage of thug cop
The IPCC fails to prevent footage showing Ian Tomlinson moments before he was shoved by police at the G20 protest.
The Independent Police Complaints Commission, who review police behaviour, have failed to get an injunction to prevent Channel 4 News from broadcasting pictures showing Ian Tomlinson moments before he was shoved and struck by a police officer at the G20 protest.
Mr Tomlinson died minutes later. Channel 4 News has pieced together extensive footage which appears to show the officer involved in several chaotic incidents with protestors.
Our Home Affairs Correspondent Simon Israel has this exclusive report - which
The report contains images that some may find disturbing.
How To Deal With The Police (Part 2 of 2)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XDCndRkzd8 _________________ 'Come and see the violence inherent in the system.
Help, help, I'm being repressed!'
“The more you tighten your grip, the more Star Systems will slip through your fingers.”
The Agenda is being met Summer of Discontent. I'll add my 2 sence re Job Seekers Allowence too lol _________________ 'Come and see the violence inherent in the system.
Help, help, I'm being repressed!'
“The more you tighten your grip, the more Star Systems will slip through your fingers.”
The death of Ian Tomlinson - decision on prosecution
22/07/2010
Keir Starmer QC, the Director of Public Prosecutions, announced today that no charges will be brought in relation to the death of Ian Tomlinson at the 'G20 protests' in London on 1 April 2009.
Introduction
This case concerns the tragic death of Mr Ian Tomlinson on 1 April 2009. Shortly before his death, Mr Tomlinson was struck with a baton and pushed very strongly in the back by a police officer, who will be referred to in this explanatory note as PC 'A', causing him to fall to the ground.
The matter was investigated by the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) and then passed to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to determine whether any charges should be brought against PC 'A', applying the Code for Crown Prosecutors. After a thorough and careful consideration of all the available evidence, the CPS has decided that there is no realistic prospect of a conviction against PC 'A' for any offence arising from the matter investigated and that no charges should be brought against him.
In the interests of transparency and accountability, the Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer QC, has decided that this detailed explanation of the circumstances surrounding Mr Tomlinson's death and the reasons for the decision not to bring a prosecution should be published.
It is important to appreciate and keep in mind the questions that the CPS has addressed in this case, namely whether there is enough evidence resulting from the investigation to provide a realistic prospect of conviction and, if so, whether a prosecution is required in the public interest. These are the questions set out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors promulgated by the Director of Public Prosecutions under section 10 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985. It is not the function of the CPS to make findings of fact and no such findings have been made. PC 'A' is entitled to be presumed innocent and that is the basis upon which the CPS has approached this case.
The incident in Royal Exchange
On 1 April 2009 a summit of financiers, bankers and leaders of industrial countries took place in central London. The event was known as 'G20' because of the number of countries represented. It was one in a series of summits across the world and earlier summits had attracted large scale demonstrations, some of which had become violent. In the weeks leading up to the event in London there was a great deal of media coverage about possible disruption.
On the day, there was a significant turnout of demonstrators. As is very often the case, many were peaceful but a sizeable minority were not, and criminal damage and some violence ensued. There were reports that over 30 police officers suffered injury during the events of the day and the CCTV and other video footage shows a degree of violence from time to time, which appears to have become more serious as the day progressed.
In various locations, the police took action to deal with the disorder, including action to move people away from the Bank of England in Threadneedle Street. Royal Exchange runs between Threadneedle Street and Cornhill and, in order to ensure that demonstrators did not get back behind police lines in Cornhill by using Royal Exchange, police officers were instructed to clear pedestrians from that area. The police plan was to move pedestrians down Royal Exchange from the direction of Cornhill until they exited onto Threadneedle Street.
Mr Tomlinson had no connection with the demonstration on 1 April 2009. He had been in the general area for much of the day and appears to have been trying to get back to his residence but, because of the police cordons, was finding it difficult to do so. He can be seen on CCTV pictures at various points in the area approaching police officers, and at one stage being moved by police officers because he was standing in the way of a police vehicle. At just after 7pm he was in Royal Exchange when the police started to move pedestrians out onto Threadneedle Street.
At about 7.15pm, a senior police office gave an order for officers to form a cordon and move people from the junction with Cornhill out onto Threadneedle Street. There were approximately 20 police officers in the cordon and they included six City of London police dog handlers. PC 'A' was part of this cordon as it made its way down Royal Exchange to Threadneedle Street.
One witness described Mr Tomlinson as looking 'disoriented' as he was in Royal Exchange. As the police line approached him, he had his hands in his pockets and walked slowly in front of the officers. A police dog handler put his hand out to move Mr Tomlinson away and a police dog bit him on the side of his leg. Mr Tomlinson did not appear to react to this dog bite, but continued slowly moving at an angle across the police line.
PC 'A', who was behind the dog handler, moved forward and using his baton struck Mr Tomlinson on the left thigh. Almost immediately he pushed Mr Tomlinson very strongly in the back. This push caused Mr Tomlinson to fall heavily to the floor and, because he had his hands in his pockets, he was unable to break his fall.
Bystanders helped Mr Tomlinson to his feet. He then left Royal Exchange and walked a short distance into Threadneedle Street. He was seen by members of the public to walk up the street and then appeared to bump into a building and slowly collapsed to the floor. Members of the public came to his assistance, but Mr Tomlinson's condition deteriorated rapidly. Police and paramedics gave him first aid and sought to resuscitate him in the street and on the way to hospital but, regrettably, they were unsuccessful and Mr Tomlinson died.
The medical evidence
The Coroner for the District appointed a pathologist, Dr Patel, to carry out a post mortem. He did so on 3 April 2009. No other medical expert was present. Because Mr Tomlinson had walked some distance from the incident in Royal Exchange before collapsing in Threadneedle Street, the two events were not immediately linked and, when he carried out his post mortem, Dr Patel was not aware of the incident involving PC 'A'. He concluded that Mr Tomlinson's death was "consistent with natural causes" and he gave the cause of death as "coronary artery disease".
The family and the IPCC sought a second post mortem and this was undertaken by a second pathologist, Dr Cary, on 9 April 2009. He concluded that whilst Mr Tomlinson had a partial blockage of the artery, his death was the result of abdominal haemorrhage from blunt force trauma to the abdomen, in association with alcoholic cirrhosis of the liver. It was Dr Cary's view that when Mr Tomlinson fell, his elbow had impacted in the area of his liver causing an internal bleed which had led to his death a few minutes later.
On 22 April 2009 the Metropolitan Police Directorate of Professional Standards instructed another pathologist, Dr Shorrock, to perform a third post mortem. Dr Shorrock agreed with Dr Cary's conclusion.
Other expert evidence was obtained from Dr Wilson, Professor Williamson, Dr Alexander and Dr Sheppard. Their evidence related to accident and emergency procedures, issues relating to the liver and microscopic changes to tissue.
The disagreement between the medical experts
In the face of this fundamental disagreement between the experts about the cause of Mr Tomlinson's death, the prosecution team (the CPS and the IPCC) embarked on a detailed and careful examination of all the notes and findings recorded, and then held a series of meetings with the experts. This inevitably took some considerable time.
In his first report, Dr Patel reported that he had found "intraabdominal fluid blood about 3l with small blood clot." This had been interpreted by the other medical experts to mean that he had found 3 litres of blood in the abdomen.
If Dr Patel had found 3 litres of blood, this would have been approximately 60% of Mr Tomlinson's blood volume and would have been a highly significant indicator of the cause of death.
However, when Dr Patel provided a further report on 6 April 2010, he recorded that he had found "intraabdominal fluid with blood about 3l with small blood clot". Since Dr Cary and Dr Shorrock inevitably depended on Dr Patel's notes of this finding to inform their own opinions, the significance of this more recent description of Dr Patel's findings had to be clarified with Dr Patel and discussed with the other experts.
Dr Patel was seen twice in conference by the prosecution team. Dr Patel maintained that the total fluid was somewhat in excess of three litres but that it was mainly ascites (a substance which forms in a damaged liver), which had been stained with blood. He had not retained the fluid nor had he sampled it in order to ascertain the proportion of blood because, he said, he had handled blood all his professional life and he knew that this was not blood but blood-stained ascites.
Dr Patel also confirmed that he had found no internal rupture which would have led to such a level of blood loss.
Dr Patel's more recent description of his findings brought into even sharper focus the difference of opinion between him and the other experts as to the cause of death. The prosecution team therefore met a number of the experts to explore where there was common ground and where, if possible, any differences could be reconciled.
As a result of that extensive exercise, the following became clear:
(a) Since Dr Patel had not retained the 3 litres of fluid he found and since he had not sampled it in order to ascertain the proportion of blood, firm conclusions about the nature of the fluid cannot now be drawn.
(b) For Mr Tomlinson's death to have occurred from blood loss so quickly, there would have to have been an internal rupture of some significance.
(c) Dr Patel found no internal rupture which would have led to such a level of blood loss.
(d) At the later post mortems there was no visible sign of a rupture.
(e) Since Dr Patel was the only person to examine Mr Tomlinson's intact body, he was in the best position to have considered the nature of the fluid he had observed and removed, and he was in the best position to have identified any rupture.
It is clear from this that even after the extensive exercise of examining all the notes and findings recorded carefully, and meeting with the experts on several occasions, there remained an irreconcilable conflict between Dr Patel on the one hand and the other experts on the other as to the cause of death.
Possible charges
The first issue that the CPS considered was whether the actions of PC 'A' were lawful. Having analysed the available evidence very carefully, the CPS concluded that there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of proving that the actions of PC 'A' in striking Mr Tomlinson with his baton and then pushing him over constituted an assault. At the time of those acts, Mr Tomlinson did not pose a threat to PC 'A' or any other police officer. Whilst the officer was entitled to require Mr Tomlinson to move out of Royal Exchange, there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of proving that his actions were disproportionate and unjustified.
Having concluded that the officer's actions could constitute an assault, the CPS then considered the possible criminal charges.
Unlawful act manslaughter
Unlawful act manslaughter was the most serious charge considered. This is where a killing is the result of the defendant's unlawful and dangerous act where the unlawful act is one which all sober and reasonable people would realise would subject the victim to the risk of some physical harm, even though it might not cause serious harm.
In order to proceed with this charge, the CPS would have to prove a causal link between the alleged assault on Mr Tomlinson and his death.
On that issue, the medical experts were and remain fundamentally divided. Dr Patel's opinion is that Mr Tomlinson's death was "consistent with natural causes" and that the cause of death was "coronary artery disease". The opinion of Dr Cary and Dr Shorrock is that Mr Tomlinson's death was the result of abdominal haemorrhage (internal bleeding) caused by blunt force trauma to the abdomen.
A conflict between medical experts inevitably makes a prosecution very difficult, but the CPS proceeded on the basis that such a conflict need not automatically mean that a prosecution must fail. For that reason, we explored at some length the possibility of proceeding without relying on the evidence of Dr Patel. However, we were ultimately driven to conclude that, as the sole medical expert who conducted the first post mortem, Dr Patel would have to be called at trial as a prosecution witness as to the primary facts. His evidence would be that there was no internal rupture and that the fluid consisted of blood stained ascites and not blood alone. Even leaving out of account the stark disagreement between him and the other experts as to the cause of death, the CPS concluded that the evidence of those primary facts undermined the basis upon which the other experts reached their conclusions about the cause of death. As a result, the CPS would simply not be able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that there was a causal link between Mr Tomlinson's death and the alleged assault upon him.
That being the case, there is no realistic prospect of a conviction for unlawful act manslaughter.
Assault
Two types of assault charge were considered: assault occasioning actual bodily harm and common assault.
Assault occasioning actual bodily harm would require the prosecution to prove that the alleged assault on Mr Tomlinson caused him actual bodily harm. So far as the push on Mr Tomlinson is concerned, the conflict in the medical evidence prevents this. If the push caused Mr Tomlinson's death, the appropriate charge would be manslaughter, not assault occasioning actual bodily harm. If, as we have concluded, the prosecution cannot prove a causal link between the push and Mr Tomlinson's death because of the conflict in the medical evidence, it follows that actual bodily harm cannot be proved either.
The separate strike with the baton was also considered. It had left patterned bruising. But where injuries are relatively minor, as these were, the appropriate charge is common assault in accordance with the CPS Charging Standard, which is applied nationally. This Charging Standard was applied in another incident arising from the G20 where a police officer had struck the complainant twice with his baton.
Common assault does not require proof of injury, but it is subject to a strict six month time limit. That placed the CPS in a very difficult position because enquiries were continuing at the six month point and it would not have been possible to have brought any charge at that stage.
Misconduct in public office
The CPS also considered the offence of misconduct in public office. The offence is committed when a public officer acting as such wilfully neglects to perform his duty and/or wilfully misconducts himself to such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public's trust in the office holder without reasonable excuse or justification. The offence is, in essence, one of abuse of the power or responsibilities of the office held.
The offence of misconduct in public office cannot simply be used as a substitute for other offences and simply being a police officer who commits a criminal offence, even one of assault, does not, without some other aggravating factor, automatically amount to the offence of misconduct in public office. Mr Tomlinson's death would be an aggravating feature, but for the reasons already stated, the prosecution cannot prove a causal link between the alleged assault and the death to the criminal standard. The Court of Appeal has held that: "The threshold is a high one requiring conduct so far below acceptable standards as to amount to an abuse of the public's trust in the office holder." In addition: "It will normally be necessary to consider the likely consequences of the breach in deciding whether the conduct falls so far below the standard of conduct to be expected of the officer as to constitute the offence." The 'likely' consequences of pushing a person to the floor is that they may sustain some bruising. But, in this case, on the analysis of the medical evidence set out above, the CPS would not be able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Tomlinson's fall had caused him any injury.
As a result, we have concluded that the conduct of PC 'A' did not meet the high threshold required to constitute the offence of misconduct in public office.
In reaching a decision about misconduct in public office, the CPS also took into account the fact that the Court of Appeal has indicated that it would be wrong to charge misconduct in public office as an alternative to a charge of manslaughter in circumstances where the prosecution cannot prove the cause of death.
As far as the dog bite is concerned, there is no evidence that the dog handler instructed or encouraged the dog to bite Mr Tomlinson.
The decision in this case was taken by Stephen O'Doherty, a Deputy Director of the CPS Special Crime Division and a highly experienced reviewing lawyer. Advice was taken from Tim Owen QC, who is recognised as one of the leading lawyers in the country specialising in police law and criminal law. The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) reviewed all of the important material and also attended a number of the meetings with the medical experts. Against that background, he is satisfied that the CPS carefully considered all the evidence in this case.
The CPS is aware that comment has been made about the time taken to reach a decision. We understand the anxiety that this has caused to the family of Mr Tomlinson and the DPP discussed it with them. He is satisfied that the CPS acted as quickly as was consistent with the thorough and careful review of the evidence that was necessary. The review entailed not only the painstaking exercise of mapping the movements of all concerned, over many hours, but also the extensive exercise of seeking to resolve the complex and difficult areas of disagreement between the medical experts.
Conclusion
In this case there has always been and, despite the efforts of the prosecution team to resolve issues, there remains an irreconcilable conflict between Dr Patel on the one hand and the other experts on the other as to the cause of death. As the sole medical expert who conducted the first post mortem, Dr Patel would have to be called at trial as a prosecution witness as to the primary facts. As a result, the CPS would simply not be able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Tomlinson's death was caused by PC 'A' pushing him to the ground. That being the case, there is no realistic prospect of a conviction for unlawful act manslaughter. It also follows that there is also no realistic prospect of a conviction for assault occasioning actual bodily harm or misconduct in public office.
The Coroner will now be informed of this decision so that he may move to an inquest. At the conclusion of the inquest the matter will be reconsidered by the CPS in the light of any evidence which may be presented. _________________ The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan.
Last edited by Mark Gobell on Thu Jul 22, 2010 1:32 pm; edited 1 time in total
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Summer of Discontent. I'll add my 2 sence re Job Seekers Allowence too lol
