(Go: >> BACK << -|- >> HOME <<)

Ian Tomlinson death: police officer will not face criminal charges

G20 riot officer filmed striking down newspaper seller will not face charges because of postmortem conflicts, CPS rules

Video footage showing Ian Tomlinson being struck by a police officer Link to this video

The police officer caught on video during last year's G20 protests striking a man who later died will not face criminal charges, the Crown Prosecution Service announced today.

Keir Starmer, the director of public prosecutions, said there was "no realistic prospect" of a conviction, because of a conflict between the postmortem examinations carried out after the death of Ian Tomlinson last year.

The newspaper seller died following the demonstrations on 1 April 2009 in central London. The official account that he died from a heart attack was undermined when the Guardian obtained video footage showing a riot officer striking the 47-year-old with a baton and shoving him to the ground shortly before he collapsed and died.

In a written statement the CPS admitted that there was sufficient evidence to bring a charge of assault against the officer, but claimed a host of technical reasons meant he could not be charged.

Tomlinson's stepson Paul King, flanked by his mother, Julia, said: "It's been a huge cover-up and they're incompetent."

King said: "He [Starmer] has just admitted on TV that a copper assaulted our dad. But he hasn't done anything. He's the man in charge ... why hasn't he charged him?

"They knew that if they dragged this out long enough, they would avoid charges. They knew just what they were doing. They've pulled us through a hedge backwards – now we have to go on living our lives."

The family solicitor, Jules Carey, said the decision was a disgrace and Tomlinson's relatives would be considering whether they could mount an appeal.

"Clearly it is a disgraceful decision," he said. "We now need to find out if there has been a lack of will or incompetence, and frankly there needs to be an inquiry into that."

The family, who went to the headquarters of the CPS in London to be told of the decision, had wanted a charge of manslaughter to be brought against the officer, who was named in media reports as PC Simon Harwood.

CPS decision

In a detailed letter setting out its reasons, the CPS said that the actions of the officer – seen striking Tomlinson with a baton then shoving him to the ground in the footage – were grounds for bringing a charge of assault.

It said: "The CPS concluded that there is sufficient evidence to provide a reasonable 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 … There is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of proving that his actions were disproportionate and unjustified."

But the CPS went on to explain the obstacles to a prosecution posed by the subsequent postmortems.

The first police account, that he died from a heart attack, was confirmed by a pathologist, Freddy Patel, in the initial postmortem.

But a second postmortem, conducted by Dr Nat Carey on behalf of the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC), found Tomlinson had died from internal bleeding.

Today the CPS said it could not bring a manslaughter charge because the conflicting medical evidence meant prosecutors "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 on him".

It said it could not bring a charge for criminal assault because too much time had elapsed; a charge must be brought within six months. The CPS also ruled out bringing charges of actual bodily harm and misconduct in public office.

Tomlinson had his hands in his pockets and his back to the officer when he was hit. The video footage suggests that no other police officer went to his aid and it was left to a bystander to lift him to his feet. He appeared to stumble about 100 metres down Cornhill, clutching his side, before collapsing a second time.

Police initially led Tomlinson's wife and nine children to believe he died of a heart attack after being caught up in the demonstration. In statements to the press, police claimed attempts by officers to save his life by resuscitation had been impeded by protesters.

The IPCC said it would now pass its file to the Met, which will consider whether the officer should be disciplined. An inquest will examine the circumstances of Tomlinson's death and the case could be reconsidered by prosecutors after it is concluded.

A Metropolitan police spokesman said the force offered its "sincere regret" over the death of Tomlinson. He said the officer could still face misconduct proceedings once the force receives the IPCC report.

The CPS announcement comes five years to the day since another landmark incident involving police use of force. On 22 July 2005, officers shot dead Jean Charles de Menezes after mistaking him for a terrorist who was about to detonate a bomb. Then, the family of the innocent Brazilian criticised the CPS for failing to bring criminal charges against any individual.

The investigations

The Tomlinson family have criticised the time it took the CPS to reach its decision.

The first investigation was conducted by the IPCC. Its officials are understood to have reached a clear view as to whether enough evidence existed to support criminal charges.

They were able to complete their inquiries in just four months and submitted a file to the CPS by August.

Key to the investigation were hundreds of hours of footage and thousands of images shot by bystanders at the protest, which enabled them to piece together Tomlinson's last 30 minutes alive.

CPS officials had assured the family they would decide on whether to prosecute the officer – and on what charge – by Christmas 2009.

The CPS has given various explanations for the delays, and claims it has had to return to the IPCC for clarification several times on different issues.

It is also understood that there have been complications surrounding the evidence of an expert witness.

The IPCC itself was late in mounting an inquiry, claiming there was nothing suspicious about the death for almost a week until the release of footage of the incident obtained by the Guardian forced a U-turn.

GMC hearing

Patel is facing the General Medical Council accused of giving questionable verdicts on four causes of deaths, several of which later turned out to be suspicious.

Dr Carey, who carried out the second postmortem examination on Tomlinson, today criticised Patel at the GMC, where Patel's disciplinary hearing began last week.

The hearing focuses on his actions during postmortem examinations of a four-week-old baby, a five-year-old girl and two women.

The panel was told that Carey had been called to examine the exhumed body of the five-year-old after concerns were raised about the initial recorded cause of death.

Patel had concluded there were "no significant marks of violence". But Carey said the death was due to a "severe head injury" likely to have been inflicted by the "actions of a third party".

At the start of this afternoon's evidence, the panel was told by the hearing's legal adviser to ignore any of today's media reports involving Patel, who denies misconduct.


Your IP address will be logged

Comments in chronological order

Comments are now closed for this entry.
  • This symbol indicates that that person is The Guardian's staffStaff
  • This symbol indicates that that person is a contributorContributor

Showing first 50 comments | Go to all comments | Go to latest comment

  • Ceartgoleor Ceartgoleor

    22 Jul 2010, 11:49AM

    That does it.
    Stay the Hell away from London.
    It's not the terrorists that would worry me, but some other uniformed bunch that can kill at will and get away with it.

  • dorlomin dorlomin

    22 Jul 2010, 11:49AM

    So the police can walk up behind you and hit you with a stick and this is not in any way reproachable behaviour.

    Nice to know. Policing is a hard job but someone has to enjoy it.

  • barciad barciad

    22 Jul 2010, 11:50AM

    This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted.
  • DunnersO DunnersO

    22 Jul 2010, 11:50AM

    I can understand that it may have been difficult to secure a conviction for manslaughter, but not assault? It was an unprovoked attack from behind. Ordinary members of the public get convicted for assault over far less.

  • Birdyboy Birdyboy

    22 Jul 2010, 11:50AM

    Bastards!

    And the police wonder why they have lost so much respect, and people hero worship murderous scum like Moat. From the video its a clear as day that the 'officers' actions were totally unreasonable. People will lose whatever respect they had for the police after this. Unbelievable.

  • slowreader slowreader

    22 Jul 2010, 11:50AM

    This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted.
  • insideleft insideleft

    22 Jul 2010, 11:51AM

    Time for a private prosecution. Alternatvely the family could bring a civil action against the police officer. The burden of proof is less onerous and they would have a good chance of success.

  • Gipserio Gipserio

    22 Jul 2010, 11:52AM

    Jesus!

    Sorry, I just can't think of anything else to say. What kind of a world is this? Everything we used to take for granted is being taken away from us.

  • Ausername Ausername

    22 Jul 2010, 11:52AM

    "The director of public prosecutions, Keir Starmer QC, announced this morning that the police officer would not face a criminal trial."

    No surprise there. As with Jean Charles de Menezes the establishment look after their own.

    Had a member of the public assaulted Mr Tomlinson in the same way then they would have almost certainly been locked up until put on trial.

    A disgrace, as usual.

    Keir Starmer was supposed to improve the CPS, he has shown that he has failed.

  • mframe83 mframe83

    22 Jul 2010, 11:52AM

    This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted.
  • Goggy Goggy

    22 Jul 2010, 11:52AM

    What a complete white-wash, again we see an innocent man die at the hands of the police and no repercussions whatsoever. And what a limp-wristed response from the DPP "we can not positively link between the assault and the death", so you're saying it was assault then. However you cannot charge for that as 6 months have passed in the time the CPS have taken to make the decision we hear today.

    This is an utter disgrace. The DPP should face charges for misconduct in a public office.

  • jodro jodro

    22 Jul 2010, 11:53AM

    Of course they can prosecute, they just don't want to, and now think they found a figleaf to hide behind. And even IF the officer can't be prosecuted for manslaughter, the video evidence shows 100% clear proof of assault. Why's he not at least prosecuted for that? This has been a cover-up from day one. Clemeron, where are your new politics now?

  • zounds zounds

    22 Jul 2010, 11:53AM

    Contributor Contributor

    I'm starting to wonder what a copper needs to do before he faces justice. I mean, in the old days at least they had the good grace to cover their tracks and murder in private. Today you can beat an unarmed man to the ground in broad daylight, on film, and not even be called to account.

    It's a horrible microcosm of the larger logic of supreme right and violent control that our society operates on. Shame on the the whole establishment.

  • card card

    22 Jul 2010, 11:54AM

    How can the conflict between two autopsies be a basis for abandoning any charges?

    Why should the officer not be charged with common assault or actual bodily harm, even if not manslaughter? At least this would indicate that the police and the CPS do not think it is acceptable for a police officer to randomly hit someone because he is fired up.

    The only conclusion to be drawn is that the police and the CPS believe that the police's right to commit whatever assaults they like is sacrosanct.

    I will stick my neck out and predict that we will hear nothing about this decision whatever from our brave new government. Just as they ignored the exclusive about the assault manual in use in detention centres.

    Be warned, folks: in feudal Britain, if the state beats you up, nobody will listen to you scream.

  • MikeAllen MikeAllen

    22 Jul 2010, 11:54AM

    CPS report says "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."

    Didn't Dr Cary view the video ? You can clearly see Mr Tomlinson's arms stretched out in front of him to break his fall ... it seems quite difficult to even imagine his elbow impacting the area of his liver, let alone use it as evidence ...

    As usual, we'll never get to the bottom of this one either ...

  • IwontSleepTnight IwontSleepTnight

    22 Jul 2010, 11:54AM

    If Mr Thomlinson had struck a police officer who went on to die a few minutes later I imagine the CPS would have come to a rather different conclusion. Wrong, wrong, wrong. I can't begin to think how his poor family feels.

  • zephirine zephirine

    22 Jul 2010, 11:54AM

    The police officer, who is suspended from duty, was told at the same time. He could still face disciplinary action.

    Apparently he can't even be charged with common assault because there's a 6-month time limit for bringing common assault charges. No doubt those police officers investigating were well aware of this.

    I suppose next we'll hear that he won't face disciplinary action because some other useful time-limit has elapsed...

  • Trilobyte Trilobyte

    22 Jul 2010, 11:54AM

    Keir Starmer, the director of public Prosecutions, said there was "no realistic prospect" of a conviction, because of a conflict between the two postmortems carried out after Tomlinson's death last year.

    But the first post-mortem was conducted by a pathologist already under scrutiny for his competence, whose findings in the Tomlinson case were basically unsound:-

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/jul/02/g20-ian-tomlinson-death-pathologist

    But Kier Starmer's argument seems to be that this guy's opinion holds as much weight as the second autopsy, and so there's no chance of a conviction.

    I'm sorry but that is clearly ridiculous. Let a court decide who's autopsy was correct.

  • siff siff

    22 Jul 2010, 11:54AM

    Nobody will be prosecuted. Even though millions of people have seen this man being beaten with sticks for nothing more than failng to move fast enough.
    Just what DOES it take for police officers to face the same treatment they hand out to the rest of us. ?

  • Hydro Hydro

    22 Jul 2010, 11:55AM

    Is there not evidence of at least assault, if not manslaughter, against Tomlinson? No criminal charges at all, demonstrates willful blindness or a massive pro-police bias.

    I am sorry that the rule of law no longer seems to apply in the case of the police and VIPs.

  • superfurryflanimal superfurryflanimal

    22 Jul 2010, 11:55AM

    This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted.
  • JBosten JBosten

    22 Jul 2010, 11:55AM

    What is the point of the IPC getting a second post-mortem, when the first was held to question, if results of a second, and third, can't challenge the first?

  • pneal pneal

    22 Jul 2010, 11:55AM

    This is utterly disgraceful. The IPCC should be abolished, as it is clearly not fit for purpose. And if the Director of Public Prosecutions doesn't think he can get a conviction then he doesn't have faith in the jury system and should be fired forthwith.

  • Rainborough Rainborough

    22 Jul 2010, 11:56AM

    I’m only surprised that the report doesn’t explicitly state that Ian Tomlinson is the only person at fault, for not taking greater care of his health.

    At all events it’s confirmed once again that the police are effectively above the law, and that not just demonstrators but anyone who happens to wander into a demonstration is seen as fair game for police thuggishness. Shameful, shameful, shameful.

  • dorlomin dorlomin

    22 Jul 2010, 11:56AM

    For the sake of this police officer getting his jollies by knowing he could bully and harm someone with impunity a man died.

    Just so this ********** could have a few seconds of feeling power over someone with impunity a human died.

    Look on Britain this petty bullying thug is your police force.

Showing first 50 comments | Go to all comments | Go to latest comment

Comments are now closed for this entry.

Comments

Sorry, commenting is not available at this time. Please try again later.

Free P&P at the Guardian bookshop

Browse all jobs

jobs by Indeed