UK: IPCC rules no disciplinery action over Sylvester death
01 October 2007
In August the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) said that the eight police officers involved in the restraint related death of Roger Sylvester should not face any disciplinery action. The ruling, which flies in the face of the 2003 inquest jury verdict of unlawful killing, that was later overturned at the High Court, means that not one police officer has been deemed responsible for Roger's death in January 1999 following his arrest under the Mental Health Act. INQUEST, the non-governmental organisation that works directly with the families of those who die in custody, pointed out that the inquest was the only forum where all the available evidence has been subject to public scrutiny, and its conclusion that Roger's death amounted to unlawful killing, was because the restraint used "amounted to the use of unlawful and dangerous force." In 2005 the Crown Prosecution Service announced that there was "insufficient evidence" to bring criminal charges against the police officers, (see
Statewatch Vol. 9 no 1, Vol. 10 no 6, Vol. 11 nos. 3/4, no 5, Vol. 13 no 5).
The IPCC's decision left the Sylvester family "disappointed but not surprised", as it is only the latest in a long line of such irrational rulings; similar outcomes have been seen in the cases of Harry Stanley, Christopher Alder, Mikey Powell and Jean Charles de Menezes, to name a few. In light of these controversial circumstances Roger's mother, Mrs Sheila Sylvester said:
We are not surprised that the IPCC, apparently because of their fear of vested interests within the police, have come to this sorry decision. They and we know that the independent inquest jury which heard all the evidence was able to express its satisfaction beyond reasonable doubt that Roger Sylvester was unlawfully killed. Even Mr Justice Collins, who quashed that verdict on a technicality, had to ceoncede that there was sufficient evidence for the inquest jury to conclude that Roger was unlawfully killed. Similarly, while refusing to prosecute any officer involved in the restraint, the Crown Prosecution Service had to concede that the restraint had caused Roger's death. It is clear to us, as it must be to all of them. that they have Roger's blood on their hands...
BBC News 8.8.07; IPCC press release 8.8.07; INQUEST website: http://inquest.gn.apc.org