• Newspaper seller 'unlawfully killed' at G20 protests
• Jury: police officer used 'excessive and unreasonable force'
• Family breaks down in tears at news
• Read our news story on the Tomlinson verdict
Welcome back to the Ian Tomlinson inquest blog. The verdict is now imminent.
For five weeks eleven men and women have heard detailed evidence about Tomlinson's death at the G20 protests on April 1, 2009.
They heard how he was struck with a baton and pushed to the ground by Metropolitan police officer Simon Harwood at 7.20pm. Tomlinson collapsed just under three minutes later.
They retired to deliberate their findings at 11.15am. They are about to come back and deliver their verdict.
The jury has taken just three hours and fifteen minutes to reach their verdict.
The jury has concluded Ian Tomlinson was unlawfully killed by a police officer at the G20 protests.
Ian Tomlinson's family could be heard shouting "yes" at the verdict. His wife, Julia, six of their children are present at the hearing and have broken down, crying.
The court was caught unaware by the jury's quick decision. They returned to the room and answered four short questions, known as the inquisition.
What was the name of the deceased?
Ian Tomlinson.
What was the cause of his death? Injury or disease?
Abdominal haemorrhage due to blunt force trauma to the abdomen in association with cirrhosis of the liver.
If the person died of injury, what were the circumstances?
Mr Tomlinson was on his way home from work on the 1st of April 2009 during the G20 demonstration. He was fatally injured at around 19.20pm on Royal Exchange Buildings ... This was the result of a baton strike from behind and a push by the officer which caused Ian Tomlinson to fall heavily.
The jury said both the baton strike and the push were "unreasonable".
"As a result, Mr Tomlinson suffered internal bleeding which led to his collapse within a few minutes and his subsequent death." The jury decided that at the time of the strike and push Tomlinson was was walking away from the officer and "posed no threat".
What is the jury's conclusion as to the death?
Unlawful killing.
For legal reasons, the jury was not permitted to name "the police officer", but we know that he was PC Simon Harwood, a member of the Metropolitan Police's Territorial Support Group.
The director of public prosecutions, Keir Starmer, who decided in July last year not to prosecute Harwood for manslaughter, will now be under intense pressure to reverse that decision.
An official Crown Prosecution Service review of the decision not to prosecute Harwood is now under way.
A quick word on the importance of "unlawful killing" as a verdict.
To reach an unlawful killing conclusion, the jury were required to have been satisfied to a higher burden of proof than the other possible verdicts, which could have been reached "on the balance of probabilities".
But to reach the unlawful killing verdict, the jury had to be convinced "beyond reasonable doubt", the same threshold used in criminal trials.
We've just published my news story on the verdict, which recaps the evidence from the hearing and explains how jurors were given two divergent explanations of Tomlinson's death.
The first pathologist to conduct a postmortem examination on the body, Dr Freddy Patel, said he died of a heart attack as a result of coronary heart disease. He was contradicted by three other pathologists who examined Tomlinson's body, all of whom found he died of internal bleeding in the abdomen.
Starmer said last July that complications with medical evidence led him to believe prosecutors were unlikely to prove a cause of death. His decision was supported by the attorney general, Dominic Grieve.
Both will now have to consider how a jury of seven men and four women concluded Tomlinson died as a result of being pushed by Harwood.
Ian Tomlinson's family will be giving a statement in about 25 minutes. I'll post an update with the details here.
We've now also published my profile of Ian Tomlinson: a "gentle, unassuming man who always avoided confrontation".
Jules Carey, of Tuckers solicitors, representing the Tomlinson family, has just released a statement. It says:
Today's decision is a huge relief to Mr Tomlinson's family. To many, today's verdict will seem like a statement of the blindingly obvious, however this fails to take account of the significant and many obstacles faced by the family over the last two years to get to this decision. The CPS will now review whether a prosecution will be brought following today's verdict and the way in which the evidence has been clarified during the inquest process.
This is Sam Jones taking over from Paul, who's gathering some reaction from the aftermath of the inquest.
OK. Here's the line we were waiting for from the CPS: the DPP has now promise a "thorough review" of the evidence.
This is the statement in full:
"The Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer QC, made it clear last year that the decision not to prosecute anyone in relation to the death of Mr Ian Tomlinson would be reviewed in light of the evidence heard at the Inquest. That review will now take place and will be thorough. It will take into account all of the evidence now available, including any new evidence that emerged at the Inquest, the issues left by the Coroner to the jury and the conclusions they reached. The review will be conducted as quickly as is compatible with the care and rigour required in a thorough exercise. It accords with our usual practice and the Attorney General's review into deaths in custody published in 2003."
We're now waiting for a statement from the Met, which is due to be read out soon. The Mayor's office is also thought to be putting something out.
While we wait for more comment, here's a tweet from one of Tomlinson's sons, Francis King
We've just got a statement from Jenny Jones, a Green party member of the Metropolitan Police Authority.
She says:
"Ian Tomlinson's family must be relieved to finally have public recognition of the fact that he was unlawfully killed. But the question remains as to when PC Harwood will face the consequences of what he has done. There simply has to be a prosecution to bring him to justice.
We have so often seen the police appearing to get away with serious assault or even manslaughter. From Blair Peach to Jean Charles de Menezes, Ian Tomlinson's death must not join that list."
Another of Tomlinson's sons, Paul King, has just said a few words to the media outside the inquest
He said:
"We've got a long way ahead of us. We've been let down for two years … We're grateful that we're going a step further than we did two years ago … [Hearing the verdict] was nice; a bit of closure for the family. It feels like something is being done by the right authority and I hope we'll get some answers. It's been proven that he was killed unlawfully. [Now] we'd like to go to court and continue with the manslaughter charges."
In order to minimise the risk of contempt of court, we have not been allowing comments on our daily live blogs from the inquest hearings.
Now that the jury has delivered its verdict, that risk no longer exists and we have now opened comments on this blog.
Just spoken to the attorney general's office, who say they have nothing to add to the CPS statement.
We've got a statement from the Metropolitan police deputy assistant commissioner Rose Fitzpatrick:
"Over the last few weeks we have heard in detail the circumstances surrounding Mr Tomlinson's death and I wish to express my profound condolences to this family.
"It is a matter of deep regret that the actions of an MPS officer have been found to have caused the death of a member of the public.
"Policing major public order events is a challenging and difficult task. It has been demonstrated in this case that all police officers are accountable for their actions and we would not want it any other way.
"If someone dies following police contact it is only right their death is thoroughly investigated. It is in the best interests of all affected that the facts of what happened are fully established and the MPS has fully supported and cooperated with the independent IPCC investigations.
"PC Harwood will now be subject to misconduct proceedings and the Crown Prosecution Service will reconsider the case. It would therefore be inappropriate to say anything further at this point."
Paul has just emailed me over a verbatim transcript of the verdict. As you might expect, it is stark but very thorough:
JUDGE THORNTON: Could you give, please, your conclusions on questions 1 to 5 in turn?
Firstly, question 1: name of deceased?
THE FOREMAN: Ian Tomlinson.
JUDGE THORNTON: Question 2: section 2, injury or disease causing death?
THE FOREMAN: Abdominal haemorrhage due to blunt force trauma to the abdomen, in association with alcoholic cirrhosis of the liver.
JUDGE THORNTON: Section 3: time, place and circumstances at or in which injury was sustained?
THE FOREMAN: Mr Tomlinson was on his way home from work on 1 April 2009, during the G20 demonstrations. He was fatally injured at around 19.20 in Royal Exchange Buildings, the passage, near to the junction with Cornhill, London EC3. This was as a result of a baton strike from behind and a push in the back by a police officer which caused Mr Tomlinson to fall heavily. Both the baton strike and the push were excessive and unreasonable. As a result, Mr Tomlinson suffered internal bleeding which led to his collapse within a few minutes and his subsequent death. At the time of the strike and the push, Mr Tomlinson was walking away from the police line. He was complying with police instructions to leave Royal Exchange Buildings, the passage. He posed no threat.
JUDGE THORNTON: Section 4: conclusion of the jury as to the death?
THE FOREMAN: Unlawful killing.
JUDGE THORNTON: Section 5: particulars for the time being required by the Registration Acts to be registered concerning the death?
THE FOREMAN: Date and place of death: 1 April 2009, the Royal London Hospital. Name and surname: Mr Ian Tomlinson, male. Date and place of birth: 7 February 1962. Age: 47 years. Occupation and usual address: newspaper vendor's assistant, Lindsey Hotel, Lindsey Street, London EC1.
JUDGE THORNTON: And those are the conclusions of you all?
THE FOREMAN: And those are the conclusions of us all.
Deborah Coles, co-director of the Inquest charity, has said that the evidence against Harwood must now be properly examined.
She adds:
For too long there has been a pattern of cases where inquest juries have found overwhelming evidence of unlawful and excessive use of force or gross neglect and yet no police officer has been held responsible. It is vital that the rule of law is upheld and applies equally to all, including police officers, and that they do not believe that they can act with impunity. This jury's findings in this case demonstrate the vital importance of a properly conducted and resourced inquest process."
Ian Tomlinson, as you can guess, is now trending on Twitter. Here's a little taste of what's out there:
This statement from Joanne McCartney, London Assembly Labour Group police spokesperson.
She points out that if it hadn't been for the evidence supplied by a citizen journalist — Chris La Jaunie, a New York fund manager who passed his video of Tomlinson's encounter with Harwood to my colleague Paul Lewis — all this might never have happened.
She says:
I welcome the conclusion of the inquest and my thoughts are with Mr Tomlinson's family, who have already waited a great deal of time for this verdict. Last year the CPS decided there were no criminal charges to be brought, yet following today's verdict it is right and proper that they reconsider in the light of the jury's findings and all the evidence heard. I hope they will carry out this review as a matter of urgency to end the family's long period of uncertainty.This verdict shows the power of the public. Had it not been for the citizen journalist, the inquest jury may not have seen the vital evidence that led to today's verdict.
A bit more from the twittersphere:
Another tweet from Tomlinson's son Francis King:
Acpo — the Association of Chief Police Officers — has no plans to put out a statement on the inquest verdict, a spokeswoman has told us.
We've now got a statement from Harwood's lawyers, in which the TSG officer says he "did not intend, or foresee at the time, that his push would cause Mr Tomlinson to fall over, let alone that it would result in any injury".
Here's the statement from his solicitors, Reynolds Dawson, in full:
"Pc Harwood would like to repeat how sorry he is that Mr Tomlinson died.
"Although Pc Harwood's contact with Mr Tomlinson lasted only a few seconds, it has been examined in great detail over several weeks of evidence.
"The mass of video and other evidence gathered by the IPCC now presents a picture very different from the one which Pc Harwood had on the day.
"In particular, he wishes that he had known then all that he now knows about Mr Tomlinson's movements and fragile state of health.
"Pc Harwood did not intend, or foresee at the time, that his push would cause Mr Tomlinson to fall over, let alone that it would result in any injury.
"Pc Harwood gave evidence to the coroner and jury for three days. He did his best to answer truthfully every question he was asked, even when he was told by the coroner that he did not have to.
"Pc Harwood is not a medical expert, but he has tried to follow the evidence which the many doctors have given, and recognises that the jury will have considered all that evidence with the greatest possible care."
–
This is video footage of Ian Tomlinson's family speaking after the verdict was delivered.
A little more from the Tomlinson family.
Standing alongside Tomlinson's widow, Julia, his son Paul King said:
"After two years, we're really grateful that the inquest process has made a strong statement about how Ian died.
"We are grateful to the jury and the coroner and we think the jury finding speaks for itself in the verdict of unlawful killing."
We've also put together an interactive map of the footage of Tomlinson's final minutes. It can be found here
Paul and I are signing off the live blog now. The comment thread will close at 8pm, but we'll post more stories on the Ian Tomlinson inquest verdict and what it means soon. Thanks.
