http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/articles/the_...osecution/

" ...............

Conclusion
In this case there has always been and, despite the efforts of the prosecution team to resolve issues, there remains an irreconcilable conflict between Dr Patel on the one hand and the other experts on the other as to the cause of death. As the sole medical expert who conducted the first post mortem, Dr Patel would have to be called at trial as a prosecution witness as to the primary facts. As a result, the CPS would simply not be able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Tomlinson's death was caused by PC 'A' pushing him to the ground. That being the case, there is no realistic prospect of a conviction for unlawful act manslaughter. It also follows that there is also no realistic prospect of a conviction for assault occasioning actual bodily harm or misconduct in public office.

The Coroner will now be informed of this decision so that he may move to an inquest. At the conclusion of the inquest the matter will be reconsidered by the CPS in the light of any evidence which may be presented."

dbboy - did you actually read the statement? you say the officer should have been charged with manslaughter but it is quite clear from this statement there is no realistic prospect of conviction. It is still open for a prosecution following the inquest if new evidence comes to light.(tried to cut and paste whole stateemnt but too long)