THE family of Roger Sylvester are disappointed but not surprised by the decision of the Independent Police Complaints Commission that the police officers involved in Roger’s restraint-related death should not face any disciplinary action.
Having seen similar decisions from the IPCC in a series of other controversial deaths in custody – Harry Stanley, Mikey Powell, Jean Charles de Menezes – Roger’s family consider that their experience brings into question the willingness and ability of the IPCC to fulfil their stated aim: ‘to increase public confidence in the complaint systems and . . . to make investigations more open, timely, proportionate and fair’.
Consistent with their unaccountable delays since they were first seized of this matter over two years ago, the decision of the IPCC betrays a desire to avoid the weight of the available evidence.
So, the decision flies in the face of the conclusion reached by the jury at the inquest into Roger’s death – the only forum where all the available evidence has been the subject of any public scrutiny – that the death amounted to an unlawful killing insofar as the restraint resulting in the death amounted to the use of unlawful and dangerous force.
Indeed, the transcript of the evidence heard at the inquest was not even considered by the IPCC in their decision making process, and those responsible continued to refuse to consider it, until Roger’s family insisted upon some semblance of due process. In the event, it would appear that the decision makers have simply gone through the motions, and the outcome merely echoes their pre-judgment on the case.
In that light, Roger’s mother Mrs Sheila Sylvester has been driven to comment:
‘We are not surprised that the IPCC, apparently because of their fear of vested interests within the police, have come to this sorry decision.
‘They and we know that the independent inquest jury which heard all the evidence was able to express its satisfaction beyond reasonable doubt that Roger Sylvester was unlawful killed.
‘Even Mr Justice Collins, who quashed that verdict on a technicality, had to concede that there was sufficient evidence for the inquest jury to conclude that Roger was unlawfully killed.
‘Similarly, while refusing to prosecute any officer involved in the restraint, the Crown Prosecution Service had to concede that the restraint had caused Roger’s death.
‘It is clear to us, as it must be to all of them, that they have Roger’s blood on their hands. As always, God is and will be the last judge.’