Liam Allan, 23, drowned in the River Thames at Kingston following contact with the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 26 August 2022.

An inquest has now found that there were some inadequacies from the police in Liam's arrest, and that failings by the police in the rescue of Liam from the river, probably caused his death.

Liam was a doting older brother and well known for his quick wit, his humour and having people in stitches with the things he'd do and say.

He was always there for other people and often gave food and money to homeless people, even when it left him short.

He was about to start a new job the week after he died.

 On the evening of 26 August 2022, two Metropolitan police officers were flagged down by a member of the public on Kingston Bridge who reported having seen an apparent altercation between a group of four men.

 The informant told the officers they had seen three of the men surround the fourth (now known to be Liam) and that they had appeared to try and reach inside a carrier bag he was holding.

The officers came across Liam, who told them that some males had tried to steal from him and had run off.

 With Liam's assistance and officers in the control room tracking CCTV, the officers soon found three men who Liam identified as the alleged perpetrators.

The males were in the company of Liam's former partner who, when the officers commenced stop and search procedures, began to make allegations against Liam.

 The woman told the inquest she was so intoxicated at the time that she has very little memory of the evening and was shocked seeing the footage and the allegations she had made.

 She told the inquest that a lot of what she said was blown out of proportion and given the state she was in anything she had said should have been disregarded by the officers.

Both officers acknowledged in their evidence that the woman had been visibly intoxicated at the time and that they were probably at least unconsciously influenced by her apparent distress.

 One officer stayed with the woman to take further details and the other found Liam.

He began walking with him along the river whilst questioning him. During this discussion Liam disclosed that the group of males had tried to beat him up as well as steal from him.

 No further action was taken by the officer to explore the alleged theft or assault against Liam and nor did they update the other officer on this new information.

 The inquest heard that several pieces of crucial information gleaned from the officer's respective further conversations with Liam and the woman was not shared with each other.

Nor were concerns about discrepancies that had arisen in the conflicting accounts shared, including as to bail conditions in place against both Liam and the female, or her prior arrests.

 The inquest heard that the officers had conflicting opinions about whether an arrest was warranted and what the next steps would be, but again these were not discussed during their communications.

 The arresting officer at the inquest accepted that when the decision to arrest Liam was being considered, key markers and information available on the police system about Liam and his vulnerabilities were missed when checking the record.

 The officer confirmed that, had they noticed all the markers, they would likely have taken different steps.

This raises serious concerns for the family as to whether Liam should have been arrested and whether the location and manner of the arrest by a single officer directly next to the riverside was safe and properly risk assessed by the officer.

 After speaking to their colleague briefly again on the phone, the officer informed Liam that he was under arrest at 11.10pm.

Liam asked "why?" as he ran away from the officer and down the riverside steps behind him, entering the water shortly after.

Liam soon began to experience difficulty in the water and can be heard shouting for help at least seven times on the Body Worn Video footage (BWV).

 The arresting officer called the police control room and requested lifeboat assistance, shouting to Liam that he was just making things worse for himself.

 The inquest heard that there was a missed opportunity by the control room staff to assign a code to the incident which would have triggered a series of prompts, including one for the operator to encourage those on the scene to look for lifesaving equipment.

The control room staff leading on the incident both said they would have expected officers to be doing this anyway. 

 The arresting officer gave evidence that they were aware of the inherent dangers of the River Thames from their training.

Despite this, they at first continued to treat the situation as one of attempted escape.

 They did not go back to their vehicle to retrieve a throwline, nor did they ask anyone to bring one to the scene.

They also did not use (or ask others on the scene to grab or use) the lifebuoy attached to the nearby wall.

Multiple other officers who arrived on the scene after Liam entered the water also failed to notice or use the lifebuoy despite walking past it numerous times.

The arresting officer said there was no doubt in their mind that, had they seen the life buoy, they would have deployed it immediately.

 Evidence showed that it was not until an Inspector reached the scene that use of a throwline was discussed.

One was deployed from the bridge shortly before 11.18pm, over 7 minutes after Liam entered the water and 3 minutes after he could be heard screaming for help, to the location where he had last been seen.

By this time Liam was submerged and did not resurface.

The Inquest heard evidence from a Royal National Lifeboat Institution (RNLI) volunteer who attended the incident.

They confirmed that cold water shock can affect people entering the Thames even on a hot day and which can take some time to set in.

They also emphasised the importance of staying afloat and ideally getting both a throwline and a floatation device such as a life ring to the person whilst keeping eyes on them.

 A trainer from the MPS reiterated the importance of communicating with the person in the water and utilising others on scene whether emergency services or members of the public to assist in tasks such as fetching lifesaving equipment.

 At around 12.26am, emergency services retrieved Liam from the water at the location he had last been seen and CPR was commenced.

Despite extensive resuscitation efforts by paramedics Liam was declared dead at 1am.

 The inquest into his death has today, Tuesday 21 January 2025, concluded that Liam's death was caused by drowning by immersion.

The jury found that there were some inadequacies from the police in Liam's arrest, and the subsequent unsuccessful rescue attempts that probably, more than minimally contributed to his death.

Additionally, there were failures and omissions in the rescue of Liam that possibly, more than minimally contributed to his death.

  The inquest jury found:

•  Had the arresting officer read Liam's markers correctly, the timing, location and/or decision to arrest without another officer present would probably have made a difference to the decision, more than minimally contributing to Liam's death.
• There were failings by the police in the rescue of Liam from the river, which probably contributed to his death, including:
• Met control room failing to add the relevant qualifying code to the computer aided dispatch system. If this had been done, a prompt to search for lifesaving equipment could have been brought to the attention of attending officers, and lifesaving equipment could have been deployed earlier.
• The red lifebuoy, near where Liam entered the water, should have been noticed by the arresting police officer, so that it was ready to deploy without delay.
• There were missed opportunities to retrieve and deploy a throwline earlier. A throwline could have been retrieved by the crewmate of the arresting officer, or by the first supporting officers who arrived on scene.
• The training provided by the police service was inadequate. This resulted in an ineffective search for buoyancy aids, delays in deployment of Met equipment, and ineffective communication with Liam.

Liam's father, James Allan, and stepmother Leanne said: "Since losing Liam our hearts have been broken, and it feels like time has stood still whilst waiting for the investigation into the Met police to be completed.

"We are happy that the inquest has confirmed our suspicions that there were many failings from the Met police and Liams death could of so easily been avoided.

"We would like to say thank you to our fantastic legal team at Saunders Law, as well as our barrister Jodie Blackstock and the team at INQUEST who have been a massive support throughout. 

"We would like to think that the Met police will take on recommendations to help prevent future deaths."

Jordan Ferdinand-Sargeant, Caseworker at INQUEST, said: "Liam's inquest highlighted concerning evidence about the actions and inactions of the police officers involved from the moment Liam first asked them for help to his death.

"The jury's findings now reiterate what we and his family have long known: that Liam's death was preventable.

The risk of people entering the water and their lives being endangered following police contact remains. INQUEST is calling for a National Oversight Mechanism to ensure life-saving recommendations are implemented so that preventable deaths, like Liam's, stop happening."

Isabel Gregory of Saunders Law said: "Liam approached the police for help on the night he died, reporting that he was the victim of theft and attempted assault.

"The response was, as the evidence reveals, shaped by a series of inadequate communications, mistakes and missed opportunities on the part of the officers which ultimately resulted in Liam himself being arrested on the riverside and entering the water.

"The fact that it was not until an Inspector arrived on scene that deploying a throwline was even considered, and that none of the attending officers noticed the lifebuoy in plain sight right next to where Liam entered the water is deeply concerning.

"As is sadly so often the case, the evidence also indicated alarming inadequacies in officer training.

"We welcome the jury's conclusions which reflect the stark reality the family argued from the start of the inquest; that Liam's tragic death was not only avoidable but a result of failings and missed opportunities on the part of the police."

She continued: "Liam's family have demonstrated incredible strength, resilience and determination, making sure that no stone is left unturned in their quest for answers and accountability.

"While the inquest conclusions cannot bring Liam back, we hope they, along with the outcome of the coroner's prevention of future death report, will result in timely and effective change to ensure that nobody else loses their life in similar circumstances in the future."