The Crown Prosecution Service's decision not to charge the officer who struck Ian Tomlinson presents his bosses at Scotland Yard with a dilemma.
The constable is expected to face disciplinary proceedings, but the exact charge can only be decided once the force is sent the report detailing the findings of the investigation by the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC). The expectation among senior officers prior to the CPS decision was that the man would be charged and go on trial. One said: "I would be astonished if there wasn't a charge."
PC Simon Harwood, who the CPS said could have faced an assault charge if the time limit had not expired, remains suspended on full pay. He has been since he came forward 16 months ago to say he was the officer pictured in the video striking and shoving Tomlinson to the ground.
For the Met there is now a tricky path to negotiate. If it proposes too weak a misconduct charge or punishment, the IPCC could direct it to put in place a more serious one, which would be embarrassing.
At the moment, regardless of the public and family anger at the failure to prosecute, the Met can rightfully say it bears no responsibilty as the investigation was carried out by the IPCC, using its own investigators, and, for the first week after the death, by the City of London force.
But the Met also has to avoid any sense that Harwood is being hung out to dry in order to assuage public disquiet, which would anger ordinary officers.
Last night the Met said it would not comment on claims that the officer had twice been the subject of complaints about alleged bad behaviour. One incident involved an allegation of road rage while off duty, the Daily Telegraph claimed. The second allegation concerned "excessive force". Neither complaint was substantiated.
Two other officers have been disciplined for their role in last April's G20 protests. Both received the lowest form of sanction, a written warning – one for using excessive force against a protester, the other for discreditable conduct.
The Met commissioner, Sir Paul Stephenson, said : "I said at the time and I'm happy to repeat now that I was concerned at the video footage and I believed then, and I continue to believe, that it was right that it was independently and robustly investigated and that we would co-operate fully with that investigation, and we have ... It was a tragic event and we've all got to regret the loss of a life."
The furore over G20 policing led to a critical report by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary. It found serious failings in the Met's operation and recommended a far-reaching overhaul of the way protests were policed. Nationwide tactics for policing protests were outdated and inadequate, and paid insufficient regard to human rights obligations, it said.
The report by Sir Denis O'Connor, the chief inspector of constabulary, found senior officers started from the standpoint that "unlawful protest" would be "dealt with robustly". Expecting violence, the Met appeared not to consider the possibility that the demonstrators wanted to stage a peaceful protest. He urged officers to begin from "a presumption in favour of facilitating peaceful assembly".
He added: "What the review identifies is that the world is changing, and the police need to think about changing their approach to policing protest. We live in an age where public consent of policing cannot be assumed, and policing, including public order policing, should be designed to win the consent of the public."