Death of Mr Ian Tomlinson - no charges to be brought

Mr Ian Tomlinson died in Threadneedle Street, London on 1st April 2009.  Almost 16 months later, the Crown Prosecution Service has announced that no criminal charges will be pursued against the Police Officer who, whilst with other officers controlling crowds during the G20 conference, had struck Mr Tomlinson with his baton and subsequently pushed him strongly from behind causing him to fall.  Mr Tomlinson was able to get up - (the Police provided no assistance to him) - and moved away to Threadneedle Street where he collapsed and died.  (At the time, there were Police claims that protesters had made their task in dealing with him difficult).  The CPS has published its reasoning - see here.  At no time was Mr Tomlinson a protester - he was trying to return home but finding it diffcult due to various police cordons.

Proving a causal link between between the push and fall and the death some time afterwards was clearly always going to be a difficulty and proof would have been crucial if a manslaughter conviction were to be secured.  Proving causation is not a medical question though, in practice, medical evidence often arises.  The law requires that the actions of the defendant had "contibuted significantly" to the outcome/consequence.  There were 3 post-mortems: the first (Dr Patel) concluded that the death was due to coronary heart disease.  It seems from the CPS statement that Dr Patel was unaware that Mr Tomlinson had been pushed.  It is not clear why Dr Patel did not know this.  However, it would appear that - at the time of doing the post-mortem - he had not been told and had not learned of it (like most people) from the news.  Two further post-mortems concluded that death was due to abdominal haemorrhage (blunt force trauma to the abdomen).  Only the first post-mortem had access to the "intact body" and Dr Patel had not retained some 3 litres of fluid found.

The CPS concluded that they would have had to call Dr Patel as a witness and he would have re-iterated his findings.  However, he would also have been subjected to cross-examination which (who knows) might have revealed more information.  We will now never know.

The CPS also concluded that they cannot bring any charge of assault.  Two possibilities existed: common assault and assault occasioning actual bodily harm (Offences Against the Person Act 1861 s47). The CPS considered the "patterned bruising" caused by the baton.  They concluded that this did not amount to actual bodily harm sufficiently serious to bring a charge under section 47.  Also, common assault could not be charged since the incident was over 6 months previously and such a charge (triable summarily only) must be brought within 6 months.  It is well established law that "actual bodily harm" is given a wide interpretation - it must be "not so trivial as to be wholly insignificant" (R v Chan-Fook [1994] 2 All ER 552) or "more than merely transient and trifling" (R v Donovan [1934] 2 KB 498).  It looks very much as if the CPS has put the bar too high in ruling out a charge under section 47 though the CPS state that they followed the usual "charging standards".

The CPS also rejected a charge of misconduct in public office. The modern leading case on this is the Court of Appeal decision in Attorney-General's Reference 3/2003.  Further discussion on this aspect of the case may be read on the Jack of Kent blog where the learned author considers that the CPS misdirected itself on the law relating to misconduct in public office.


This will be, yet another, of those cases where the CPS will be considered to lack robustness and a willingness to trust a jury to reach a sensible decision on ALL the available information.  There will also be the view that there is a disparity in how the CPS deals with allegations against the Police as opposed to allegations against others.

See a video of the event on The Guardian website.  An article in The Guardian describes how some lawyers are dismayed over the decision - see "Lawyers challenge CPS over decision not to prosecute" - 22nd July.  See also the Tomlinson family campaign and Inquest.  The views of the Police Officer in question are not, as far as I know, in the public domain.



Addendum - 23rd July:  The second pathologist (Dr Cary) is reported to be stating that his post mortem report made it clear that Mr Tomlinson suffered injuries of sufficent seriousness to justify a charge of actual bodily harm - see The Guardian 23rd July.  It also appears that the first pathologist (Dr Patel) is the subject of an "Interim Order with conditions" made by the General Medical Council's Interim Orders Panel.  The interim order, which is in respect of complaints unrelated to Mr Tomlinson's case, was made on 21st July 2010 and lasts for 18 months (subject to review) - see Guardian 23rd July.  As for the Police Officer who struck Mr Tomlinson, it seems to be unclear just how he will be disciplined - see The Guardian 23rd July "How will Police discipline the officer .."

Addendum A - 26th July:  The Independent Police Complaints Commission statement about this case may be read on their website - IPCC.  Also, there is an interesting discussion on the Charon QC blog.

Addendum B - 26th July: The Coroner due to hear the inquest into Mr Tomlinson's death is coming under pressure to stand down and allow the appointment of another Coroner - see The Guardian 26th July.  The Attorney-General Mr Dominic Grieve told Parliament that he had seen nothing to make him doubt the propriety of the decision-making in this case - see here.  The Attorney said that he did not believe that a different decision would have been reached had the dead person been a Police Officer.  (The Attorney-General has "superintendence" over the CPS).

Addendum 27th July:  The Guardian 27th July "Ian Tomlinson death: Police Officer faces disciplinary hearing"