Key questions that the police are yet to answer
Two days after Ian Tomlinson died, three Metropolitan police constables said they had seen a colleague strike him with a baton and push him to the ground. Senior officers at City of London Police are now under investigation by the Independent Police Complaints Commission for not passing this information on to the police watchdog, coroner or family. These are the key questions that have yet to be answered.
1Why was the IPCC not immediately informed that police witnesses had seen their colleague strike Tomlinson?
Police forces have a statutory obligation to inform the IPCC when there is evidence of police contact that may have contributed to a person's death. Why did this not happen? The Met said it was not in breach of its obligation, because it realised the significance of the police witnesses and relayed their reports to City of London Police investigators. When exactly did the IPCC first become aware of the new police witnesses, and what was its response?
2Why were the coroner and pathologist not told about the crucial new evidence on 3 April
The Met said it told City of London Police about new witnesses at 4.15pm on 3 April, before Dr Freddy Patel's postmortem. Senior City of London Police investigators have contradicted the Met, saying the information was not relayed until the postmortem was well under way. Who is telling the truth? Even assuming the information was not received until after 5pm, why was the coroner not told the next day?
3Should information from the police witnesses have changed what police told the media?
The IPCC has ruled that the media were not misled by police. That conclusion was reached before the watchdog launched its investigation into information supplied by the three police witnesses on 3 April. Why did the City of London detective superintendent in charge of the investigation, Anthony Crampton, authorise a press statement released the following day, 4 April, that made no mention of the police witnesses? Who decided to describe the cause of death as a "sudden" heart attack – and why?
4When was it decided to keep so much information from Ian Tomlinson's family?
Det Supt Crampton recorded in his log that he did not want to tell Tomlinson's family about marks found on the body to avoid "unnecessary alarm or distress". Was that the real reason? Why were they not told about the police witnesses as soon as they came forward? Crucially, why – once City of London Police knew about the police witnesses – did they provide the family with a misleading statement that claimed there was "no evidence" that police in the area were involved in the death?
5Should the IPCC have launched an independent investigation sooner?
Given that Tomlinson died so soon after violent clashes with police, why did the watchdog not instantly launch an inquiry? If not then, why not on 3 April, when members of the public contacted the IPCC independently to say that they had seen a police officer attack Tomlinson? Or on 5 April, when photographs emerged showing him at the feet of riot officers? And why has it taken two years for the IPCC to launch an investigation into the handling of information supplied by the three police witness?