Since 1990, more than 3,600 people have died in the custody of the State. According to INQUEST, a disproportionate number of those who die are from Black, Asian and other minority ethnic groups (BAME), who often die as a result of "excessive force, restraint or serious medical neglect". That medical neglect typically manifests itself in the cases of detained persons suffering with some degree of mental illness. Even --more alarming than the number of deaths in custody is the number of successful criminal prosecutions that they have given rise to - zero.
The circumstances of Rigg's death are symptomatic of a culture of impunity. The unprecedented condemnation that it evoked in the jury that heard his inquest at Southwark Coroner's Court marks a crossroads for the State response to deaths in custody that must be seized upon to effect institutional reform. Only then can any progress be made in healing what is an open sore on our criminal justice system.
Sean Rigg was
Sadly, his untimely death was typical of so many of the 3600. He was a Black man who, at the time of his arrest was suffering a recurrence of the paranoid schizophrenia that he had been managing, with the help of medication, for several years.
The jury at the inquest delivered a stinging rebuke of the authorities responsible for Rigg's death. The full verdict can be read here and has been variously covered by the media; for example here by the Guardian, here by The Independent, and here by Channel 4.
The cause of death was `1a cardiac arrest, 1b acute arrhythmia, 1c ischemia, 1d partial positional asphyxia’ and that he died at Brixton police station as a result of a cardiac arrest.
The Police
- ‘The level of force used whilst [Rigg was] restrained in the prone position…was unsuitable’ and that it was ‘questionable whether relevant police guidelines regarding restraint and positional asphyxia were sufficient or followed correctly’. He had been restrained unnecessarily in this position for 8 minutes.
- The majority view of the jury was that the restraint ‘more than minimally contributed to Sean Rigg’s death’.
- The police ‘failed to identify that Sean Rigg was a vulnerable person at point of arrest’ and he was therefore taken to the police station instead of an A&E department or Section 136 suite, ‘despite information about him being readily available and accessible’.
- Whilst Sean Rigg was in custody ‘the police failed to uphold his basic rights and omitted to deliver the appropriate care’
Mental Health Authorities
- The South London and Maudsley NHS Trust (SLAM), failed to ensure that Sean Rigg took his medication. Furthermore SLAM’s failure to undertake a Mental Health Act assessment at or from the 11 August more than minimally contributed to the Sean Rigg’s death’.
A culture of impunity
The culture of impunity that pervades this area of the law is built upon the fact that the institutions charged with ensuring accountability consistently fail to do so. The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) does not command the levels of public confidence that it should. It is widely seen to lack independence and its investigations are often dismissed as "whitewashes". Moreover, its inability to compel the attendance of witnesses leaves it fundamentally toothless.
The impotence and incompetence of the IPCC was typified by its management and investigation of the Mark Duggan shooting by Met Police Officers last August. In the hours immediately after the shooting, the IPCC released a statement that Duggan had been shot following an exchange of gunfire with officers. Indeed, an officer's life had only been saved by his radio, which caught a bullet. It turned out that the bullet was from a police-issue weapon.Then, they reported that there was no shoot out but that a gun presumptively belonging to Duggan had been found at the scene. Eventually, it was conceded that the gun had not been fired, not surprising given that Duggan's DNA was never found on the weapon.
It did nothing to redeem itself here either.The IPCC investigation into Rigg's death found:
On the contrary, the four police officers involved:
"no evidence that neglect or wrong doing or excessive force contributed to Mr Rigg’s death."
On the contrary, the four police officers involved:
“adhered to policy and good practice by monitoring Mr Rigg in the back of the van whilst being transported to Brixton Police Station following his arrest.”
You can read the full report here but clearly, the fact that the IPCC managed to reach this conclusion on much the same evidence that the jury considered is alarming. This might be explained by officers lying to the investigators but the fact that this has only transpired as a result of a court case does little to bolster the IPCC mandate.
Then came the decision of the CPS not to prosecute G4S or any of its employees over the death of Jimmy Mubenga, who died whilst being escorted by the Government's biggest security contractor on an extradition flight from Heathrow to Angola, just weeks before the Rigg verdict. This is despite the fact that Mubenga was forcibly restrained in a position that was said to amount to "playing Russian Roulette with detainees' lives" and despite eye-witness accounts that he was calling out that he could not breath shortly before his fatal collapse. It is hard to dispute that this decision was "morally and legally perverse"
The widespread disappointment that greeted the acquittal of PC Simon Harwood following his role in the events leading to the death of Ian Tomlinson at the London G20 protest in 2009 just seemed to rub salt in the wound.
What now?
Against that bleak background, the Rigg verdict stands in sharp relief. Whilst a coronal jury has a limited remit and cannot consider any criminal charges itself, there is nothing to stop its determinations prompting criminal (or civil) proceedings. In light of the evidence that the jury heard in reaching its decision (subject to criminal rules of evidence) and the public reception to it, there must at the very least be a case to answer in the courts. It remains to be seen whether Kier Starmer and Co share that view.
We saw equally unprecedented scenes during the August Riots. Even above the din of the hang-em and flog brigade, we heard commitments by MPs to addressing the various social injustices of which Mark Duggan's death has become emblematic - from the heavy-handed and unlawful use of stop and search to deprivation and poverty of opportunity and a lack of opportunity. A year on and that inquest has been delayed by IPCC filibustering whilst the Duggan family's pursuit of justice continues, marginalised in the popular consciousness.
The obvious difference for the Rigg case is that Sean has not been the victim of the smear campaign aimed at Duggan. Whilst the "he had it coming anyway" narrative (wrongly) dominated the Duggan case, Rigg is (rightly) seen as the victim of fundamental institutional failings.
Those failings must be robustly and candidly addressed by all concerned. The failure to provide for basic care needs for Riggs' mental health needs was inadequate and inexcusable. As far as the IPCC is concerned, its long-term future is currently being considered by the Home Affairs Select Committee. However, the IPCC have also commissioned an independent review of their original investigation as a direct result of the jury's verdict:
The obvious difference for the Rigg case is that Sean has not been the victim of the smear campaign aimed at Duggan. Whilst the "he had it coming anyway" narrative (wrongly) dominated the Duggan case, Rigg is (rightly) seen as the victim of fundamental institutional failings.
Those failings must be robustly and candidly addressed by all concerned. The failure to provide for basic care needs for Riggs' mental health needs was inadequate and inexcusable. As far as the IPCC is concerned, its long-term future is currently being considered by the Home Affairs Select Committee. However, the IPCC have also commissioned an independent review of their original investigation as a direct result of the jury's verdict:
" it is the first time the IPCC has commissioned an independent eternal enquiry into one of its own investigation, despite frequent criticism from families, lawyers, MPs and campaigners in the past. But the scale of the apparent flaws into the Rigg investigation provoked disbelief as they were revealed at the inquest"
On the part of the Met, Assistant Commissioner Simon Byrne made the typical expressions of "deep regret" about Rigg's death but qualified this by reference to the "challenging circumstances" often facing his officers. He also highlighted the "clear policies and procedures in place for dealing [with those affected by mental illness]". Singularly failing the "robust and candid" test. If an officer needs to read a policy or procedure to work out whether or not it should take more than three hours and several 999 calls before officers are dispatched or to decide whether it is excessive to restrain a person in the way Rigg was restrained, they should have their warrant cards withdrawn immediately.
Byrne's statement, which can be read in full here, betrays the same lack of leadership that contributed to Sean Riggs' death. Until State authorities wake up to their corrosive failure to deal openly with deaths in custody, the families of Smiley Culture (a campaign that I have done some work for) , Kingsley Burrell (whose body still has not been released for burial more than a year after his death), Daniel Morgan and too many others, will be doomed to tread the circular path in their question for justice.
Clearly, not everyone who dies in custody does so in suspicious circumstances or as a result of unlawful actions. Equally, it cannot be the case that no-one has died in such circumstances, thereby demanding the invocation of the criminal law.
Legal reforms are needed but can only go so far in effecting change. This is evidenced by the fact that institutional/cultural changes towards a more open and accountable approach to deaths in custody have not been precipitated by the expansion of the law in the creation of the new offence Corporate Manslaughter (meaning that organisations as well as individuals are now liable to criminal prosecution) or by our Article 2 ECHR obligation to ensure an effective investigation into a death in the custody. Unless, use is made of legal powers, they are not worth the statute they are derived from.
The veil of impunity will only be pierced by a cultural change led by stronger prosecuting decisions. The only "problem" in lifting that veil is that it could expose an ugly face to our criminal justice system that some would rather not see. But if not now,when?
No comments:
Post a Comment