Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes?

The vexatious and unholy nexus between institutional racism and the issue of deaths in police custody has been dealt with before here on TRWS .

Most recently in April, readers were asked to reflect on these matters following the vacillation and disingenuousness of the English Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) in its reluctance to reach a decision to prosecute a Metropolitan Police officer recorded taunting and racially abusing an arrested black suspect.

In that article, we also touched on the tragic story of Sean Rigg, a 40-year Brixton resident who died in police custody in 2008.

An inquest into Mr Rigg's death concluded yesterday that police officers used unsuitable and unnecessary force, failing to uphold the detained man's basic rights as he collapsed after being pinned down for eight minutes.

The language used by the court is typically understated and circumspect; characterising the laundry list of procedural infringements as being "more than minimally" contributory to Mr Rigg's death.

On 21 August 2008, the 40-year old musician, who had long struggled with mental illness, became disturbed after suffering a breakdown. Staff at his hostel made six 999 calls from around 5pm, seeking to have Sean taken to a place of safety; calls which the police refused to attend.

Mr Rigg was in a disturbed state by the time he left the hostel at 7pm; he was only approached by the police after a member of the public raised the alarm. Mr Rigg was then restrained, handcuffed and arrested for a public order offence and alleged assault on a police officer. He was carrying his passport in his pocket at the time.

The van taking Sean Rigg to Brixton police station arrived at 7.30pm but he collapsed before being transferred to the station. At no point did anyone flag up the fact that he was suffering from a mental illness, nor was he identified as a previous detainee under the Mental Health Act. A police surgeon and an ambulance attended, but by 9.24pm, Sean was pronounced dead at King's College Hospital.

It was reported that the inquest jury concluded that "death was caused by cardiac arrest, partial positional asphyxia, that is the position officers held him in, aschaemia, which is the restriction of blood flow to body tissues leading to oxygen or glucose depletion, and acute arrhythmia."

The Rigg family's response to this verdict, coming as it did at the end of a seven-week long inquest spoke of the pain and trauma they had undergone in their search for justice. "This pain has been compounded by officers at best misleading the jury and at worst lying under oath. The evidence we have heard has left us in no doubt that Sean died as a result of the wilful neglect of those who were meant to care for him and keep him safe."

The inquest decision, delivered as a narrative verdict, can certainly be read as a point-by-damning-point indictment of how the Metropolitan Police treats black suspects in the course of arrest and in custody.

TRWS can quote reputable sources who describe incredibly excessive measures being taken in the course of arresting black suspects. We are aware of at least one verifiable case in the past month where five arresting officers ran a high risk of killing an unresisting suspect with a heart condition using the same technique of holding him down in a V shape, in a prone position; not at all dissimilar to the circumstances of Sean Rigg's death. 


It would appear therefore to be a question of what we do when and not if this happens again...

But while there was some measure of justice (or at least truth) for the Rigg family, spare a thought for the loved ones of Ian Tomlinson who last month had to endure the shameful ordeal of watching the officer tried for causing the death of the 47-year old news seller being cleared on a charge of manslaughter. Tomlinson, who was filmed being struck with a baton  and pushed to ground by PC Simon Harwood during the London G20 protests in 2009, died shortly after (and almost certainly as a result of) the assault on Cornill, near the Bank of England.

Harwood's acquittal appears to have hinged on evidence from a trauma specialist, who raised the hypothesis that analysis of Tomlinson's blood indicated his internal bleeding could have started before the fall. This was evidence that wasn't presented to an inquest which last year ruled that Tomlinson was "unlawfully killed" by a police officer.

And speaking of evidence that wasn't presented to last year's inquest or this year's manslaughter trial; it would appear that PC Harwood had, over the course of a very chequered career, been the focus of several investigations into allegations of brutality.

By all accounts, Harwood left the Met 'on health grounds' in 2001. (These health grounds of course had nothing whatsoever to do with avoiding a planned disciplinary hearing into claims that while off-duty he illegally tried to arrest a man in a road rage incident, altering notes retrospectively to justify his actions.)

Happily for Harwood, those same health grounds that had invalided him out of the Met were no bar to his joining the neighbouring Surrey Constabulary. He clearly convalesced marvellously out in the Home Counties because by 2005 he was ready, willing and able to return to the Met. And what's more, the Met welcomed him back with open arms.

From then on, it was business as usual for PC Harwood: it is reported that he was accused of a string of assaults; "having punched, throttled, kneed or threatened other suspects while in uniform, although only one complaint was upheld."

Once again the Met was forced to come out and publicly eat crow. Deputy assistant commissioner of the Met, Maxine de Brunner, was forced to admit that Harwood should never have been allowed to re-join the force, blaming the oversight on poor record keeping.  "Insufficient recording and checks meant that detailed information regarding the officer's misconduct history was not shared at key points. We got that wrong," she said.  Not so wrong however that she could say sorry to the Tomlinson family.

But if there's blame and opprobrium to go round, let's not confine our contempt to the coppers. No-one wanted to go near this one from the start. The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) didn't want to run with it and CPS did what they seem to do best in these situations, which seems to be the bureaucratic equivalent of closing their eyes, sticking their fingers in their ears and going 'la-la-la' very loudly.

The IPCC, having being shamed into pursuing this case only by the release of video footage of the attack, were keen following the verdict to be seen on the side of the aggrieved family.

Deborah Glass, deputy head of the IPCC, said significant questions remained about Harwood's actions on the day, to be examined at the disciplinary hearing.

She added: "There are also questions in this case that the [Met] must answer. PC Harwood was able to retire from the [force] while facing disciplinary proceedings for previous alleged misconduct towards a member of the public. That he was then re-employed by the force, first in a civilian role and later as a constable, is simply staggering and raises considerable concerns about their vetting procedures."

For the record, the Met reckons it has put its vetting house in order: since the incident, according to de Brunner,  "there have been huge changes to vetting processes. Now all applicants, including officers applying to becoming police staff, as well those re-joining or transferring from other police services, are formally vetted and this involves a full misconduct intelligence check."

One can only wonder what they were doing before if this is being presented as a step forward....


Apologies to regular readers for the paucity of content from TRWS over the summer months. As we are a not-for-profit organisation, the need to raise filthy lucre for operational costs such as food and rent sometimes becomes rather pressing. Your patience is appreciated during this period of pecuniary vicissitude.