This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/may/29/no-prosecution-for-police-involved-in-death-of-man-in-psychiatric-care

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
No prosecution for police involved in death of man in psychiatric care No prosecution for police involved in death of man in psychiatric care
(about 3 hours later)
Prosecutors have decided not to take action against police involved in the 2010 death of a man who was restrained by officers at a psychiatric hospital. Prosecutors have decided not to take action against police involved in the death in 2010 of a man who was restrained by officers at a psychiatric hospital.
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) said there was insufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction against any of the officers involved in the death of IT graduate Olaseni Lewis. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) said there was insufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction against any of the officers involved in the death of Olaseni Lewis , an IT graduate.
Lewis, 23, died on 4 September 2010 following his restraint by a number of Metropolitan Police officers at the Bethlem Royal hospital in south-east London where he was, initially, a voluntary patient because of mental health problems. Lewis, 23, died on 4 September 2010 following his restraint by a number of Metropolitan police officers at the Bethlem Royal hospital in Beckenham, south-east London, where he was, initially, a voluntary patient because of mental health problems.
The case has been subject to many legal moves which have culminated in the latest decision.The case has been subject to many legal moves which have culminated in the latest decision.
The CPS said, following consideration of evidence provided by the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC), it “has decided that there is insufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of a conviction against any of the police officers involved in Lewis’ restraint for any offence”. The CPS said, followingconsideration of evidence provided by the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC), it had decided that there was “insufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of a conviction against any of the police officers involved in Lewis’ restraint for any offence”.
It added: “Our consideration of the case included an external review by a Queen’s Counsel which was concluded in early 2013. The additional material recently supplied by the IPCC has not changed the evidential position in relation to possible criminal charges. The decision was taken in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors which requires there to be sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of a conviction and a consideration of the public interest factors before charges can be authorised. It added: “Our consideration of the case included an external review by a queen’s counsel, which was concluded early 2013. The additional material recently supplied by the IPCC has not changed the evidential position in relation to possible criminal charges. The decision was taken in accordance with the code for crown prosecutors which requires there to be sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of a conviction and a consideration of the public interest factors before charges can be authorised.
[The officers] invoked their right to silence (the right of every suspect) and did not answer questions[The officers] invoked their right to silence (the right of every suspect) and did not answer questions
“It should be noted that despite the reinvestigation launched in 2013, the bulk of the evidence has remained unaltered from that which was referred to us in 2012. The QC instructed by the CPS advised the IPCC on a number of points to be put to the police officers in interview but they invoked their right to silence (the right of every suspect) and did not answer questions, relying on prepared statements.”“It should be noted that despite the reinvestigation launched in 2013, the bulk of the evidence has remained unaltered from that which was referred to us in 2012. The QC instructed by the CPS advised the IPCC on a number of points to be put to the police officers in interview but they invoked their right to silence (the right of every suspect) and did not answer questions, relying on prepared statements.”
The CPS said that as regarded a possible offence of actual bodily harm (ABH), there was insufficient evidence that strikes with a police baton, which left only superficial injury, and the handcuffing of Lewis were unreasonable or unlawful in the circumstances “and cannot be considered as amounting to the offence of assault occasioning ABH as defined by law”. The CPS said that regarding a possible offence of actual bodily harm, there was insufficient evidence that strikes with a police baton, which left only superficial injury, and the handcuffing of Lewis, were unreasonable or unlawful in the circumstances and could not “be considered as amounting to the offence of assault occasioning ABH as defined by law”.
It reached the same conclusion with regard to unlawful act manslaughter and gross negligence manslaughter.It reached the same conclusion with regard to unlawful act manslaughter and gross negligence manslaughter.
“It is important to remember that the law entitles officers to restrain an individual until they achieve control. Having carefully considered the evidence, including the views of a number of experts, we have concluded that there is insufficient evidence to show that the manner in which he was restrained was unlawful or unnecessary given the circumstances in which the officers found themselves. The evidence of the hospital staff does not, on the whole, criticise the methods as excessive and there is considerable evidence as to Lewis’ strength and violence.”“It is important to remember that the law entitles officers to restrain an individual until they achieve control. Having carefully considered the evidence, including the views of a number of experts, we have concluded that there is insufficient evidence to show that the manner in which he was restrained was unlawful or unnecessary given the circumstances in which the officers found themselves. The evidence of the hospital staff does not, on the whole, criticise the methods as excessive and there is considerable evidence as to Lewis’ strength and violence.”
As for misconduct in a public office, the CPS said: “Whilst it may well be said that Lewis’ restraint might have been handled better, there is insufficient evidence that the actions of the officers meet the high criminal threshold required for this offence.”As for misconduct in a public office, the CPS said: “Whilst it may well be said that Lewis’ restraint might have been handled better, there is insufficient evidence that the actions of the officers meet the high criminal threshold required for this offence.”
It concluded: “We have advised the IPCC that no further criminal action should be taken in relation to this matter. The issue of whether to bring internal disciplinary proceedings, which do not require the same level of evidence, is a matter for the IPCC.It concluded: “We have advised the IPCC that no further criminal action should be taken in relation to this matter. The issue of whether to bring internal disciplinary proceedings, which do not require the same level of evidence, is a matter for the IPCC.
“We understand that our decision will be hugely disappointing and frustrating for the family of Lewis who have acted with dignity throughout this process. However, the CPS can only prosecute where there is sufficient evidence of an offence as defined by the law.“We understand that our decision will be hugely disappointing and frustrating for the family of Lewis who have acted with dignity throughout this process. However, the CPS can only prosecute where there is sufficient evidence of an offence as defined by the law.
“We also understand that the time taken to reach this decision has only added to the disappointment and frustration. We want to reassure Lewis’ family that we have reached this decision as swiftly as possible since receiving the IPCC’s latest referral which was made in April of this year. “We also understand that the time taken to reach this decision has only added to the disappointment and frustration. We want to reassure Lewis’ family that we have reached this decision as swiftly as possible since receiving the IPCC’s latest referral which was made in April of this year. We have written to Lewis’ family to explain our decision in detail and to offer a meeting should they want one.”
“We have written to Lewis’ family to explain our decision in detail and to offer a meeting should they want one.” Cindy Butts, an IPCC commissioner, said: “Having considered a full file of evidence, the CPS has decided there is insufficient evidence to charge any officer with any criminal offence in relation to Lewis’ tragic death.
IPCC Commissioner Cindy Butts said: “Having considered a full file of evidence, the CPS has decided there is insufficient evidence to charge any officer with any criminal offence in relation to Seni Lewis’ tragic death. “Following the conclusion of our investigation I provided a report to the Metropolitan police service, detailing our findings as to whether or not any officers involved has a case to answer for either misconduct or gross misconduct and should face disciplinary proceedings.
“Following the conclusion of our investigation I provided a report to the Metropolitan Police Service, detailing our findings as to whether or not any officers involved has a case to answer for either misconduct or gross misconduct and should face disciplinary proceedings.
“Under police complaints procedure, it is now a matter for the force to respond to me with a decision on what action it proposes to take as a result of those findings.”“Under police complaints procedure, it is now a matter for the force to respond to me with a decision on what action it proposes to take as a result of those findings.”
Some 10 serving police officers and one retired officer, all of whom were involved with restraining Lewis immediately prior to his death, were interviewed under criminal and gross misconduct caution. About 10 serving police and one retired officer, all of whom were involved with restraining Lewis immediately before he died, were interviewed under criminal and gross misconduct caution.