In circumstances where a man’s assault and death were played out on our television sets, the obstacles faced by the Tomlinson family in their battle for justice undermine public confidence in the system intended to hold police officers to account. Had Tomlinson’s assault been carried out by an ordinary member of the public, there is no doubt that the police would have acted within the six-month statutory time limit for common assault and pursued a manslaughter charge in the knowledge that any conflict in the expert evidence obtained by the investigation would be tested in court. A verdict would then have been reached by a jury, which would have considered the credibility of the experts’ explanations, bearing in mind the professional reputations of the experts. This is exactly what happened at the inquest, where the standard of proof for an unlawful killing verdict was the same as in the criminal court.

This case highlights a number of the failures that are unfortunately so common in the context of our work. These include: failures to adequately supervise and manage officers and to conduct adequate, effective and independent complaint investigations that give rise to disciplinary proceedings, as well as failures to bring about prosecutions and/or appropriate penalties and/or to change police policy or practice to prevent a recurrence of the conduct investigated. These failures foster a culture of impunity amongst officers and allow culpable officers to remain in a position to inflict further harm on unsuspecting members of the public. The Crown Prosecution Service will now review its decision with regard to a potential prosecution of the officer involved, PC Harwood; MPs are considering disciplinary proceedings. But what of those who, in breach of their code of professional standards, witnessed but failed to report Harwood’s conduct? Disciplinary action should be instigated against those officers too, given that had the video footage of his last moments not been released, the cause of Tomlinson’s death may have never come to light.

Finally, this case gives rise to serious questions about the use of kettling as a “containment” tactic. Indeed, last month the High Court ruled that the Metropolitan Police broke the law when they kettled protesters at the G20 demonstrations in 2009, during which Ian Tomlinson died. It is clear that the use of kettles enforced by aggressive policing places members of the public at risk of significant harm. We represent Alfie Meadows, who suffered brain injury as the result of a baton strike to the head by a police officer during the 9 December 2010 protest about tuition fees. Luckily for Alfie, he is able to pursue his own quest for justice. Tomlinson was not so fortunate and his family have been forced to take up that struggle on his behalf. Let’s hope their campaign is nearing its rightful conclusion.

Sarah McSherry is equity partner, head of actions against the police, Christian Khan Solicitors and Louise Christian is head of public law, Christian Khan Solicitors

The post Death on film appeared first on Index on Censorship.

Download a timeline of events on the day of Ian Tomlinson’s death

The police officer filmed pushing Ian Tomlinson to the ground will not face criminal charges, the Crown Prosecution Service said today.

The director of public prosecutions, Keir Starmer QC, announced this morning that the officer — called PC ‘A’ — shown here pushing the 47-year-old former newspaper vendor to the ground at the 2009 G20 demonstrations in London, has no case to answer.

PC ‘A’ can be seen hitting Tomlinson with a baton and pushing him over at the South end of the Royal Exchange Buildings in the City of London. Demonstrators helped Tomlinson up and he is later seen staggering down the road. He later collapsed outside 77 Cornhill and died from internal bleeding. Evidence compiled using photographs and video readily available on the internet and via news organisations showed that not only were police not attacked by protestors as they sought to give Tomlinson first aid (as had been claimed), but that their phalanx-like lines of officers may have prevented an ambulance from reaching Tomlinson sooner.

The Independent Police Complaints Commission was late in launching an inquiry into the death, claiming there was nothing suspicious about it. Only the release of footage of the incident by the Guardian and Channel 4 News a week later changed their minds. The IPCC submitted its findings four months after Tomlinson’s death. Its initial post mortem stated that he died of a heart attack. A second investigation by the IPCC concluded that he died of internal bleeding.

It took 15 months for the CPS to come to a decision about whether to charge the officer, a member of the Territorial Support Group, with manslaughter. The deadline to charge him with common assault has long passed.

In a statement released this morning, the CPS says it will “not be able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Mr. Tomlinson’s death was caused by PC ‘A’ pushing him to the ground. That being the case, there is no realistic prospect of a conviction for unlawful act manslaughter. It also follows that there is also no realistic prospect of a conviction for assault occasioning actual bodily harm or misconduct in public office.”

The Guardian’s Paul Lewis, who won praise for his coverage of the incident, said: “Knowing the Ian Tomlinson case inside-out, I am shocked. Manslaughter was a tough call, but no charge at all? Not misconduct?”

The Tomlinson family who were in attendance at today’s decision along with PC ‘A’, claim the investigation was a cover-up. With Keir Starmer calling the events leading to Tomlinson’s death an “alleged assault” [despite clear evidence that Tomlinson was not only hit but pushed hard in the back], no one is surprised that PC ‘A’ was let off. But to not face any form of disciplinary action?

There’s a chant on the streets when demonstrators have a grudge against the police. It goes “no justice, no peace, fuck the police”. Today it is “no justice, no peace, we are the police.”

The post No charge in Ian Tomlinson death appeared first on Index on Censorship.

When campaigners wave placards, march, occupy buildings and shout, their methods are dismissed as crude. And they are. But taking to the streets can be effective, which is why the interests of weak governments in suppressing vocal dissent.

Protest is one of the most useful measures of free speech. For journalists, this means we must report the freedom with which people can demonstrate as enthusiastically as we analyse the political grievances that took them to the streets in the first place.

The roots of the Manchester Guardian, traced to when John Edward Taylor witnessed the cavalry charges against protesters at St Peter’s Field in Manchester, in 1819, stand in this tradition. He succeeded in publishing his own account before the “official” version could gain currency and, 18 months later, started the newspaper for which I now write.

Almost two centuries later, the right to protest is still a concern for those who seek to defend free speech in the UK. Last week parliamentarians on the Joint Committee on Human Rights considered whether, as protesters and civil liberty groups believe, the state is failing in its obligation to facilitate peaceful protest, and is instead preventing it.

We already know to some extent what the committee thought. Its report into the policing of protest revealed how peaceful protesters must contend with counter-terrorism laws, private injunctions, restrictions to free speech around parliament and a law that allows police to arrest people for insulting words or behaviour.

That report, however, was published on March 23, a week before Ian Tomlinson collapsed and died at the G20 protests after an unprovoked attack by police officers.

Many hardened protesters are annoyed it took last month’s demonstrations in the City of London — and the death of a newspaper vendor who was trying to walk home through police cordons when he was attacked from behind — to make the public realise how far the right to protest and freedom of assembly has been eroded.

Having endured the mass surveillance of protesters against Israel’s offensive against Gaza and the 10,000 stop and searches at last year’s Kingsnorth climate camp, many protesters viewed the baton charges, police cordons and use of undercover officers at the G20 demonstrations as small fry.

If the public interest of Tomlinson’s tragic death has changed the landscape of protest, it is unlikely to result from the plethora of committee hearings, policing reviews or even the 250 complaints to the Independent Police Complaints Commission.

The Tomlinson case has proved that technology has allowed citizens to place the state under surveillance. The video of the attack on Tomlinson, handed to us by a New York fund manager, prompted a predictable outcry. What was more interesting was the silence that preceded it.

For five days after Tomlinson’s death, we published the stories that questioned police propaganda about the death. There were photographs of Tomlinson lying at the feet of riot police, seconds after being assaulted, statements from witnesses who saw him hit with a baton and flung to the floor.

Others undermined the police claim that protesters impeded Tomlinson’s medical treatment. But to be honest, no one really noticed. Police were able to maintain the ‘line’ that there had been no contact with police, while attempting to dissuade myself and fellow journalist from digging further.

Police did not want us to broadcast the video of Tomlinson’s attack. But once it had been viewed by millions of people, the truth became undeniable.

As the New York fund manager who gave me the video said: “Now I’m glad I came forward. It’s possible Mr Tomlinson’s death would have been swept under the rug otherwise. You needed something incontrovertible. In this case it was the video.”

Paul Lewis is a Guardian reporter whose most recent stories include the Guardian’s extensive coverage of the G20 protests. In 2007 he was nominated Young Journalist of the Year and worked for the Washington Post as the Laurence Stern Fellow

The post The right to protest: Technology turns the camera on surveillance state appeared first on Index on Censorship.