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.

This week saw the release by Human Rights Watch of a searing expose of evidence against the British government and its alleged complicity in the torture of people held in Pakistan suspected of terrorism. The report, Cruel Britannia, is based on evidence collected by Ali Dayan Hasan, a senior HRW researcher, who interviewed not only suspects and their lawyers but also members of the Pakistani ISI agency who were involved in the torture. It corroborated and provided further detail for the investigative reporting on torture of the Guardian’s Ian Cobain, who recently won the Paul Foot Award for investigative journalism. Human Rights Watch now recommends that there be a full independent public inquiry into UK complicity in torture.

Binyam Mohammed, a former Guantanamo detainee, is involved in a long running judicial review about whether the British government should disclose five paragraphs of a document said to confirm US and UK knowledge of his torture in Pakistan and Morocco. The government’s contention that disclosing this would breach national security has been dismissed by the High Court but the government is now appealing. There appears to be dispute about whether upsetting the US government can be a breach of national security.

Meanwhile there is a police investigation after a referral by the Attorney General into possible criminal offences by security service personnel in Binyam Mohammed’s case and that of another unnamed person.

Seven former Guantanamo detainees including Binyam Mohammed and my client Martin Mubanga have also brought actions for damages against the security services, the Attorney General, the Foreign Office and the Home Office, alleging complicity in torture and extraordinary rendition. Last week in an astonishing judgment Mr Justice Silber ruled that in principle the government may be entitled to rely on secret defences and secret evidence which would not be disclosed to the claimants. This would result in the whole adversarial process being subverted, with the government being allowed to have secret hearings with the judge and special advocates not allowed to communicate with the claimants. This judgment is now being appealed. Government lawyers have also filed witness evidence claiming that there are 250,000 documents in their possession relating to the action. It appears however that they are not proposing to give any of the important documents to the claimants’ lawyers or open them to public scrutiny.

In response to the growing number of detailed allegations in the public arena, the Foreign Secretary David Miliband and the ex-Prime Minister Tony Blair merely repeat the mantra that the British government does not condone torture. In March 2009, Gordon Brown announced that the guidelines on interrogating terror suspects would be rewritten and published. However David Miliband later went back on the promise to publish saying this “would give succour to our enemies”.

Written instructions to security services interrogating suspects in Afghanistan after 9/11 disclosed earlier this year, while saying they should do nothing to “condone” torture, in fact made it clear that the UK government sanctions turning a blind eye. The instructions claimed (with dubious legality let alone morality) that there was no obligation to intervene even when interrogators are aware of torture.

The secrecy surrounding this whole issue needs to be lifted and proper public accountability established. If the guidance on interrogating suspects who are believed to be undergoing torture has been rewritten can’t we now know what the previous guidance was and what exactly happened? As Human Rights Watch have pointed out there may well be an obligation to have a public inquiry in the face of so much evidence that there has been complicity in a breach of Article 3 of the Human Rights Act prohibiting inhuman and degrading treatment. Human Rights Watch describes the position of the British government as “legally, morally and politically invidious”. Only a transparent response by the government will dispel the cloud over its conduct.

Louise Christian is a solicitor who is acting for Martin Mubanga in a High Court action against the government and the security services

The post Torture: time for transparency appeared first on Index on Censorship.