Thirty years ago, I was the researcher for an independent inquiry into the death of Blair Peach.

It was run by a bright young secretary of the National Council for Civil Liberties, Patricia Hewitt.

The case of Ian Tomlinson brought back memories.

Some of the similarities are uncanny. Both deaths are highly regrettable, but we can draw some positive comparisons about how policing of protests has developed and demonstrate some of the beneficial effects of the Human Rights Act (HRA).

The two men were killed after contact with an officer from the specialist squads formerly known as Special Patrol Groups and now as Territorial Support Groups.

Both were mixed up in demonstrations where some elements in the crowd were looking to break through a police containing-line.

In Blair Peach’s case, the Anti-Nazi League was trying to stop the National Front from holding a meeting.

In Ian Tomlinson’s case, protesters against the G20 summit were intermittently trying to break out of a police ‘kettle’.

In both cases, the Metropolitan Police were reluctant to admit liability. For Blair Peach, they never did.

In 1979, immediately after the event, two officers saw fit to change their appearance – one shaving off a moustache and the other suddenly growing a beard.

One declined to attend an identification parade. No one was ever charged, although an inquiry by commander John Cass recommended that three officers should be.

The Met did not immediately take responsibility for the death of Ian Tomlinson either.

That only changed once the Guardian discovered damning video coverage taken by a passing investment banker. Once this was on the internet, momentum for further inquiry was irresistible.

Film also turned up of Ian Tomlinson’s collapse some minutes after his first altercation with an officer.

Thus, news organisations had viewable footage of the whole sequence of events.

The mobile phone, by itself, is a major factor in obtaining greater accountability.

That is why oppressive security forces, like that in Syria, are so nervous about them.

The HRA is the legal equivalent of the mobile phone. It introduces a structure around the right of free assembly and free speech.

More indirectly, it has encouraged a culture of greater accountability and independence.

The conduct of the two inquests demonstrates this. Ian Tomlinson’s inquest was held by Peter Thornton QC, one-time head of human rights chambers Doughty Street.

He sat with a jury and no criticism emerged of his handling of proceedings. The jury returned a verdict of ‘unlawful killing’.

By contrast, Blair Peach’s inquest was held by Dr John Burton.

He sat with a jury only when ordered to by the Court of Appeal; he wrote to ministers complaining about allegations made by supporters of Blair Peach before the inquest had completed; he refused to admit commander Cass’s report as evidence.

Lord Chancellor’s Department officials even had to dissuade Dr Burton from publishing his own dismissive account of accusations against police officers.

This, they felt, would have provided ‘a heaven-sent opportunity... to argue that the coroner was biased and for this reason the inquest was unsound'.

The HRA has encouraged the judges into a much more critical role in relation to the policing of protest – though this has taken a bit of work.

You can identify the development of a sea change in their approach to kettling.

In the first Supreme Court case, Austin ([2009] UKHL 5), the judges denied that those in the kettle at the G20 protest had even been deprived of their liberty – that had to be corrected by the European Court of Human Rights.

In the more recent case of Moos ([2011] EWHC 957 (Admin)), the domestic judges took a much more critical view, accepting after careful analysis only that one specific kettling operation on the day had been justified – the others had not.

Even in Austin, there was clear guidance which, as summarised by Her Majesty’s Inspector of Constabulary (HMIC), was that:A greater willingness for transparency is also apparent in the internal workings of the police.

  • the tactic is resorted to in good faith;
  • the tactic is proportionate to the situation making the measure necessary; and
  • the tactic is enforced for no longer than is reasonably necessary.

The HMIC report on the policing of the G20 protest in London overtly took a human rights perspective, expressly drawing attention to HRA requirements and that ‘protests are an important safety valve for strongly held views’.

HMIC criticised the Association of Chief Police Officers guidance as inadequate; insisted on the sensitive use of kettling; upheld the requirement for officers to display their numbers; and made nine major recommendations.

One of them, betraying the Northern Ireland experience of the chief inspector, Sir Hugh Orde, was, in relation to cordons, ‘no surprises’.

This was the mantra that he used in the province for policing protests in pretty fractious circumstances.

There will always be trouble at demonstrations. Some protestors will be looking to cause it.

There will always be police officers who lose their cool and lash out.

What matters is: the overall strategy of the police; the restraints on individual officers overstepping the mark; and the consequences for doing so.

The death of Ian Tomlinson reveals that there is still too much of a gap between policy at the top of the police and at an operational level.

However, it also shows that we have moved on considerably from the events around the death of Blair Peach in 1979.

But there is still much to be done – Ian Tomlinson should not have died.

Roger Smith is director of the law reform and human rights organisation Justice