Manchester activists vent fury at Tomlinson decision
Article published: Wednesday, August 25th 2010
Manchester activists have voiced their outrage following the decision by the CPS not to prosecute over the death of Ian Tomlinson, with a University of Manchester lecturer going as far as to tell MULE that the affair means that the police are now “effectively immune from the law”.
A year on and still nobody is brought to justice
Tomlinson, a newspaper seller, was struck from behind by a policeman while he was making his way home during last April’s G20 protests. The decision not to prosecute was taken despite police watchdog the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) backing a prosecution for manslaughter and advice to the CPS from the pathologist who carried out the second post-mortem that the evidence supported a charge of actual bodily harm.
Tom, a demonstrator from Manchester, witnessed Tomlinson moments before he died.
“I gave evidence to the IPCC enquiry and stupidly believed them when they said no one could get away with this, especially when they had been caught on video.
“My reaction [to the decision not to prosecute] was one of absolute incandescent anger. I had been lied to.”
Testimonies from individuals who attended the demonstrations indicate that the aggression shown towards Tomlinson was not an isolated incident.
One Manchester resident who did not wish to be named said: “The police were antagonistic the entire time. They were so charged up – almost as though they wanted to clash with protesters – so in a way it is a surprise that nobody else was killed. I can’t believe that nobody is going to face justice after an innocent man – who wasn’t even involved in the protests – was murdered. It is an outrage”.
Joanna Gilmore, assistant lecturer in Law at the University Of Manchester, was present at the G20 protests in the capacity of legal observer. She warned that the affair has wider ramifications for the policing of protests.
“The CPS decision was disgraceful yet unfortunately unsurprising. No police officer has ever been charged following the death of a protester or suspect in custody at the hands of the police.
She added, “What was expected to make a difference here was the fact that the whole incident was caught on camera, however no prosecutions were brought. The police are therefore effectively immune from the law in public order situations.”
The continuation of that historical trend has been lambasted by campaigners who accuse the institutions of a cover-up. Previous high-profile cases which went unprosecuted were the death of anti-fascist protester Blair Peach in 1979 and the more recent killing of Jean Charles de Menezes in 2005, following which a series of orchestrated lies were released by the Met regarding the incident and the victim’s personal circumstances.
Other aspects of police conduct in protests are now the targets of scrutiny. The use of “kettling” by the police, where protesters are physically prevented by police from leaving a restricted geographical area and, in some cases detained for hours on end, has been highlighted as a tactic of political policing.
While the police claim that the tactic neutralises public disorder, some protesters argue that it is used intentionally to prevent genuine expression and demoralise. Tom’s experience reveals such intimidation: “When you are surrounded and attacked repeatedly for up to 8 hours by a cordon of very large heavily armed men it is not just the physical injuries but the sheer stress of the situation, combined with heat exhaustion, dehydration, the need for the toilet and the lack of food that can be utterly crippling.
“It is an awful way to treat other humans.”
And a direct link can be drawn between the use of kettling and the perpetration of violence against protesters such as the death of Ian Tomlinson, as argued by Gilmore.
“The problem was not simply that people were deprived of their liberty without justification, but that the police used this opportunity of control to subject protesters to periodic and indiscriminate baton charges.
“The problem, therefore, did not lie in the hands of a few ‘rogue officers’ as the Tomlinson coverage would suggest, but was instead a coordinated attack by the police on anyone who happened to be in the area at the time.”
Critics remain unconvinced of kettling’s legality and say that it conflicts with provisions in the European Convention on Human Rights. A case is now awaiting appeal at the European Court of which could signal the end of the use of kettling, if Strasbourg deems that it is an unlawful restriction on the right to liberty.
The impression the episode made on some will not fade away any time soon. While the police may hope that the public memory is short, faith in the supposed independence of public institutions has taken a heavy battering and those from Manchester will not be quick to forget what they witnessed. In the words of Tom: “It was the most appalling thing I have ever seen. Anyone who watches The Bill and believes it really needs to wake up; [the police] are not accountable to anyone but themselves”.
James Cassidy
More: Manchester
Comments
-
Any chance of a footnote to expand on this:
“A case is now awaiting appeal at the European Court of which could signal the end of the use of kettling, if Strasbourg deems that it is an unlawful restriction on the right to liberty.”
i.e. rough idea of when an appeal hearing might be held? And at least the names of the party/ies, that you’re referring to, is it Austin? Saxby? Black? It should all be a matter of public record, so there shouldn’t be a problem clueing Mule readers in.
Thanks.
Comment by Lulu on August 29, 2010 at 5:32 pm
The comments are closed.
