WIREDGOV

The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) yesterday published its report into the death of Ian Tomlinson.

Mr Tomlinson (age 47) was struck on the thigh and pushed by PC Simon Harwood on 1 April 2009, during a police operation to clear protestors out of a pedestrian area during the G20 demonstrations.  Mr Tomlinson fell over after the push. He was helped to his feet by members of the public and walked away but a few minutes later collapsed and subsequently died.

The jury at the inquest into Mr Tomlinson's death returned a verdict of unlawful killing on 3 May 2011.

IPCC Deputy Chair and Commissioner for London Deborah Glass said: "I know this has been an enormously difficult two years for the Tomlinson family who have had to deal not only with the trauma of the loss of a loved one in these circumstances, but all the complicated and lengthy legal processes that follow. I hope that our investigation, which we are only now able to publish, has helped them in their quest for answers.

"As would have been clear to anybody following the inquest, this was a complex and painstaking investigation. In fact, it is one of the largest investigations ever undertaken by the IPCC.   Our investigators examined in minute detail more than 1200 hours of footage from CCTV cameras, police evidence gatherers and the police helicopter as well as images from the media and members of the public. This evidence was used to make a video reconstruction following the movements of both Mr Tomlinson and PC Harwood, that we provided to the Coroner to assist the inquest.

"We commissioned an expert in public order training to give commentary on PC Harwood's actions and we took statements from nearly 200 members of the public, as well as from police officers and staff and ambulance staff who treated Ian Tomlinson after he collapsed. We jointly instructed, along with the Tomlinson family, a second post mortem, and gathered medical evidence so that a range of medical experts could advise on it. The evidence from our investigation has been the subject of intense scrutiny in the course of the inquest."

In relation to the actions of PC Simon Harwood, the IPCC investigation was referred to the Crown Prosecution Service in August 2009 with a recommendation that the officer be prosecuted for manslaughter. The CPS decided in July 2010 that no prosecution would be brought, but, as is the usual practice, are now reviewing that decision in light of evidence heard at the inquest.

Some paragraphs in the report, including the conclusions in relation to PC Harwood and a recommendation for the Metropolitan Police Service, have been redacted for legal reasons, bearing in mind the CPS review.

More generally, the IPCC investigation concluded that:

• During the early evening on 1 April, Mr Tomlinson came into direct contact with police on at least three occasions as he sought to pass through police cordons on his way home. There is no evidence of any misconduct on the part of any of these officers.

• The police plan to disperse demonstrators from the pedestrian area known as Royal Exchange Buildings was proportionate and necessary, taking into account the serious disorder which had occurred at the Royal Bank of Scotland in Threadneedle Street.

• It is understandable, in the context of a major policing operation, that some of the officers in Royal Exchange Building did not see contact between PC Harwood and Mr Tomlinson.

• It is a matter of concern that only one officer who did see the push expressed concern and made a written record of what she had seen. However, it is not surprising, in the context of a major policing operation in which thousands of officers were deployed and many were using force, that PC Harwood's push, no matter how forceful, was not the subject of reporting.

• There is no evidence of misconduct in relation to the police dog handlers present in Royal Exchange Buildings during the incident.

• When Mr Tomlinson collapsed, the first officers at the scene immediately informed the police operations room and requested an ambulance. Police medics treated Mr Tomlinson at the scene and gave first aid. They moved him back behind the advancing police cordon where the ambulance would be better able to gain access and attend to Mr Tomlinson without interruption.

Following the CPS decision in July 2010 the IPCC passed the report to the Coroner for use at the inquest and the MPS for consideration in relation to misconduct.  It has not been able to publish its report until the conclusion of the inquest.

IPCC Commissioner Deborah Glass continued: "The process by which police officers are held to account for their actions has come under much scrutiny in this case. The system whereby the IPCC investigates, the CPS makes decisions on prosecution, the police propose misconduct, the IPCC agrees or directs, a misconduct tribunal decides the outcome and, separately, a Coroner hears the evidence with a jury but does not apportion blame - is complicated and confusing.

"I know that the CPS is now reviewing its decision not to prosecute. Whatever they decide following that review should not prevent the misconduct proceedings now being heard and I urge the Metropolitan Police to hold the hearing as soon as possible.

"I hope that by publishing our investigation report, and by directing the Metropolitan Police Service to hold the misconduct hearing in public, we can shed some light on the system within which we work."

The IPCC has also published two further investigation reports into complaints from the Tomlinson family.

One looked in detail at the events of 1 April 2009 and the subsequent media handling following a complaint by the family of Ian Tomlinson. The investigation found no evidence that anyone involved in the police media handling connected to this incident set out to deliberately mislead.

IPCC Commissioner Deborah Glass said: "It is entirely understandable that the Tomlinson family, having learned of key evidence about the circumstances of Ian Tomlinson's death from the media rather than the police or the IPCC, should feel angry and aggrieved, and believe that the police had tried to cover it up. 

"There is no doubt of the crucial role played by the media in obtaining evidence that has proved to be vital to the IPCC in its investigation into Mr Tomlinson's death. It may well be the case that, but for this evidence, Mr Tomlinson's death may not have resulted in the criminal investigation that was launched by the IPCC on 8 April. However, it is also the case that those officially charged with investigating the death of Mr Tomlinson, whether City of London Police or the IPCC, obtained that crucial evidence only after the media had published it.

"While it does not make the circumstances of Mr Tomlinson's death any less disturbing, our investigation found no evidence that any press officer, or any police officer responsible for agreeing media lines, set out to mislead anyone. Nor have we seen any evidence that the police attempted to cover up the circumstances of Mr Tomlinson's death."

This investigation does not consider a further allegation, arising from evidence disclosed for the inquest, that on 3 April 2009 some officers were aware of physical contact between police and Ian Tomlinson, but that this was not passed on to the family, Coroner or IPCC, which will be reported on separately.

The other looked into a complaint from Mr Tomlinson's family that misinformation was supplied by police to the pathologists engaged in the post mortem examination of Mr Ian Tomlinson on 22 April 2009.  The IPCC upheld this complaint. It concluded that the Acting Detective Inspector did brief a pathologist that Mr Tomlinson fell in front of a police van, which was inaccurate. He did so based on what he believed to be the case at the time but he should have ensured he relayed factual information rather than his interpretation of the facts.

IPCC Commissioner Deborah Glass said: "Although there was no evidence that the officer intended to mislead the pathologist, we found that this officer was reckless in his briefing. We also considered whether this had any adverse effect on the pathologist's findings. Following our investigation the pathologist was invited to reconsider his position in light of the inaccuracy. He confirmed that it did not affect his findings."

Notes to editors

All three investigation reports can be found on the IPCC investigation reports page - www.ipcc.gov.uk/en/Pages/investigation_reports.aspx