Legal charity INQUEST has produced a comprehensive briefing on the death of Ian Tomlinson.
News Line is pleased to reproduce the following excerpts:–
INQUEST is working with the family and lawyers of 47-year-old Ian Tomlinson who was caught up in the police response to the G20 protests while he walked home in the City of London on 1 April 2009.
The events surrounding this death are profoundly alarming and raise questions about police powers, tactics and accountability.
INQUEST is concerned that the disturbing issues surrounding the death of Ian Tomlinson could have been swept under the carpet and the cause of his death dismissed as being from ‘natural causes’ without the benefit of the video footage and photographs that entered the public domain to challenge directly the police version of events.
The controversial circumstances surrounding Mr Tomlinson’s death require robust, independent and transparent investigation.
Ian Tomlinson is the first person who has died in the context of a heavily-policed protest since the IPCC (Independent Police Complaints Commission) assumed responsibility in April 2004 for investigating deaths following police contact.
There are a number of unique features regarding this case, not least the public scrutiny of police conduct through video/mobile phone footage and how it undermined the police version of events. . .
There is extensive information about the movements of Ian Tomlinson prior to his death.
Thirty years ago on 23 April 1979, Blair Peach died as a result of head injuries inflicted by police.
He, along with thousands of others, was demonstrating against the National Front in Southall, west London.
No police officer was ever charged or prosecuted in relation to his death which raised serious concerns about the use of excessive force and the lawless behaviour of police officers from the Metropolitan Police Special Patrol Group (the predecessors to the TSG [Territorial Support Group]) while policing the demonstration. . .
There are evocative and disturbing parallels between Blair Peach’s death and that of Ian Tomlinson given the public concerns about police conduct at the G20 demonstration. In particular the focus on the supervision and tactics of the TSG are eerily familiar. . .
Given that Ian Tomlinson died in the context of a heavily-policed and high-profile demonstration that generated significant public interest, the failure of the IPCC to immediately instigate an independent investigation was an obvious error of judgement which the IPCC has refused to acknowledge. . .
The IPCC’s failure to treat the police version of events with a healthy degree of scepticism or to probe police conduct is detrimental to its independence and credibility, particularly in light of the IPCC’s lamentable track record.
The clear impression that emerged was that the IPCC and the Metropolitan Police sought to avoid an investigation into Mr Tomlinson’s death by suggesting incorrectly that he had died of natural causes.
On 1 April 2009 the IPCC’s London Regional Director agreed a Metropolitan Police press release that misleadingly failed to mention that there had been police contact with Ian Tomlinson before his death but did focus on the apparently exaggerated throwing of bottles by protesters at police administering first aid.
Evidence quickly unfolded that seriously undermined the police’s account of events, yet it took until 8 April before the IPCC instigated an independent investigation.
That the IPCC subsequently sought to distance itself from the above press statement appears to confirm the troubling nature of the IPCC’s initial collaboration with the police.
The family of Ian Tomlinson have concerns about how long it took before the IPCC took over the investigation and that the IPCC found itself at best reacting to events and at worst simply observing them.
The Metropolitan Police assumed responsibility for forensic analysis of the scene and conducting the investigation initially.
This was even though the MPS (Metropolitan Police Service) notified the IPCC that there may have been some contact between Ian Tomlinson and the police approximately one hour after he had died.
The MPS referred the investigation to City of London Police in the early hours of 2 April.
The City of London Police completely failed to persuade the Tomlinson family of its impartiality, not least when they were told by an investigating officer that he was not ruling out the possibility that the alleged assailant may be a member of the public dressed in police uniform. . .
The family have been dismayed by the delays in identifying the officer who apparently struck Ian Tomlinson in the video and interviewing him and his colleagues.
The family have expressed concern about the apparent delay of the IPCC in seizing MPS and City of London Police video footage of the incident.
This was compounded by the fact that the chairman of the IPCC, Nick Hardwick, said on Channel 4 News that there was no CCTV of the incident and that there were no cameras in the location where Ian Tomlinson was assaulted.
The family continue to meet the IPCC for periodic updates but are routinely advised that little can be disclosed to them on account of the ongoing investigations.
As a result the IPCC have so far failed to instill confidence in the family.
It has been widely reported that prior to the G20 protests there were oral and written briefings by commanders that may well have informed officers’ conduct on the day. . .
It is reported that Commander Bob Broadhurst who led the operation spoke of possible violence by protesters, and in a briefing to the press on 26 March 2009 Commander Simon O’Brien said: ‘We are up to it and up for it.’. . .
It appears that at a particular time in the evening and immediately preceding the assault on Ian Tomlinson an order was issued to clear out the Climate Camp protesters and a number of other areas. . .
We are also concerned to learn more about the role played by Forward Intelligence Teams (FIT), plain clothes police officers and British Transport Police officers in the intelligence operation during the G20 protests and who was responsible for their conduct. . .
Serious concerns are raised about the constitution, role, training and management of the TSG () and we are aware that a number of officers have been identified as being involved in alleged assaults during the G20 protests.
Camera and CCTV evidence which has emerged since the death has highlighted what appear to be wholly unprovoked or excessive assaults with complete disregard for the public or cameras surrounding them.
The London Evening Standard reported on 13 May 2009 that a total of 283 TSG officers had been investigated over 547 allegations of misconduct during the last year. Of these, 159 allegations were of assault.
As of 10 June the IPCC have received 276 complaints in relation to the policing of the G20 protests relating to both police tactics and use of force.
It appears that many of the initial decisions about the investigation of Ian Tomlinson’s death were taken by the MPS, City of London Police and the City of London Coroner. . .
The family of Ian Tomlinson is concerned about information that has entered the public domain via the press and that much of it appears to have been given to the press by public authorities. . .
Four hours after Ian Tomlinson’s death, the Metropolitan Police issued a statement announcing the death, which included the claim that police officers administering first aid were impeded by protesters throwing missiles.
These allegations are strenuously denied by protesters who had gone to his aid and called an ambulance. . .
The matter of misinformation is now the subject of formal complaint by Ian Tomlinson’s family and a second IPCC inquiry into media handling by the MPS and City of London police.
It is now a matter of record that the coroner sought to prevent the early involvement of the IPCC in the investigation into Ian Tomlinson’s death by refusing to allow them access to the first post mortem examination.
Whatever occurred in relation to the IPCC’s initial understanding of the events of Ian Tomlinson’s death, operational control did not pass to the IPCC until seven days after his death and five days after the findings of the first post mortem were disclosed. . .
We have specific concerns that:
a. The family were not informed about the death until over nine hours following the death. There is no conceivable reasonable explanation for this delay;
b. That the first post mortem examination was conducted on behalf of the coroner on 2 April 2009 before the family were advised that it was going to take place. A sergeant from the City of London Police was present at this post mortem;
c. The pathologist instructed by the coroner was Dr Freddie Patel, who was discredited following his conduct over the death of Roger Sylvester (who died following police restraint) for speculating about cocaine use by Roger to press reporters at the opening of the inquest – a matter for which he was reprimanded by the General Medical Council.
Experienced pathologists who conduct post mortems into cases of death in custody have been more cautious about including untested police versions of the events leading to a death in their report prior to the outcome of any investigation. . .
Deaths in custody and following police contact have been a source of tremendous pain and anger for citizens throughout this country, not just Londoners. . .
The stark fact remains that an innocent man died after being assaulted by police.
