The Crown Prosecution Service's decision that no charges will be brought in relation to the death of Ian Tomlinson has been challenged by lawyers, who argue it shows a disparity in how the criminal justice system treats police officers and members of the public.
There are concerns that the CPS's decision that there is "no realistic prospect" of a conviction against the officer who was filmed during last year's G20 protests striking the newspaper seller, who later died, reflects a reluctance to charge police officers and demonstrates the impunity of the police.
Today's findings have been compared with the case of Blair Peach, an anti-facist protester whose death was one of the most controversial events in modern policing history.
"This decision highlights that there has been no change since the 1970s when no officer was charged in relation to the death of Peach," said Sarah McSherry, a partner at Christian Khan Solicitors. "The news is as unsurprising as it is disappointing."
She said: "I am not aware of any case involving an ordinary member of the public in which the CPS took over one year instructing numerous experts to test the evidence before deciding on whether or not to prosecute.
"The CPS appears to have conducted its own trial of this matter in private. The evidence they refer to ought to have been tested in open court in the context of a normal criminal prosecution as with any ordinary member of the public. The court would then have decided on which, if any, of the expert's oral evidence was more convincing. It would also have considered the pathologists' professional reputations."
Deborah Coles, the co-director of Inquest, said there had been a "catalogue of failings" at the evidence-gathering stage of the investigation and questioned the way deaths such as this were investigated from the outset. It reflected a "failure to investigate them as potential homicides", she said.
One of the assault charges considered by the CPS – assault occasioning actual bodily harm – was also dismissed because of this conflict in medical evidence, which Keir Starmer QC, the director of public prosecutions, said prevented the prosecution from proving that the alleged assault on Tomlinson had caused him actual bodily harm.
The other assault charge – common assault – does not require such proof of injury, but it is subject to a six-month statutory time limit. Starmer said this had placed the CPS in a "very difficult position" because at that stage inquiries were continuing and it was not possible to bring such a charge.
In response to this decision, lawyers questioned the time it took various bodies – from the CPS to the IPCC – to investigate, again highlighting a stark disparity between a seeming willingness to subject members of the public to the criminal justice system and a reluctance in relation to police officers.
Finally, the offence of misconduct in public office was dismissed, again because the prosecution said a causal link between the alleged assault and the death could not be proved to the criminal standard.
McSherry said this did not amount to a "legitimate reason" as to why the police officer was not charged.
There are further concerns that the CPS's failure to charge in this case offers little hope to those seeking justice in other allegations against the police. Coles said: "If you cannot secure a prosecution in this case, with the graphic footage available, what hope is there in other cases?"
Paul Mendelle QC, chair of the Criminal Bar Association, said he could understand concern over the decision.
Speaking on BBC Radio's World at One, he said a member of the public caught on camera assaulting someone would probably be charged quickly, but the circumstances of Tomlinson's death made the case more complex.
Mendelle added: "There will be concern in the wider world that, as some have put it, police officers seem to be getting away with serious assaults in full view of the public and members of the media and no charges are brought.
"But the decision as far as I can see so far from the statements of the director of public prosecutions is legally unimpeachable."