Putney Pusher Suspect’s Family Blames Met Police for Negligence
Nicholas Brandram, accused of the 2017 Putney Bridge assault, died at home after police withheld forensic timelines. His sisters, Alexia Hicks and Sophie Volker, allege the Metropolitan Police were negligent, leading to public vilification and his deteriorating mental state. The force has referred…
By Felo News Desk · Published
In a tragic turn of events, Nicholas Brandram, who was linked to the 2017 Putney Bridge assault, died at his home in early 2024 after a prolonged period of police uncertainty and media scrutiny. His sisters, Alexia Hicks and Sophie Volker, have publicly accused the Metropolitan Police of negligence and reckless conduct, arguing that the force’s handling of the case contributed to Brandram’s mental decline and eventual death.
Background of the Putney Bridge Incident
The incident that put Brandram under suspicion began in June 2017, when a woman was shoved onto Putney Bridge in London. A witness statement led police to arrest Brandram in June of that year. Despite the arrest, no formal charges were ever filed, and the case remained unresolved. The assault has since been classified as a serious public order offence, but the identity of the actual perpetrator remains unknown.
Arrest, Media Leaks and Public Identification
After his arrest, Brandram’s name and photograph were leaked to the press, a move that the family claims was a breach of protocol. The leak sparked a wave of online vilification, with social media users posting unverified claims and harassing Brandram. The sisters argue that the Metropolitan Police should have protected his right to privacy and ensured that no media outlet could publish his identity before any charges were formally announced.
Forensic Delays and Mental Health Deterioration
Brandram’s family states that he voluntarily provided DNA samples to clear his name, but the forensic process was delayed. According to the sisters, the police informed Brandram several days before his death that they could no longer provide a definitive timeline for the results. This uncertainty, they say, caused significant anxiety and contributed to a rapid decline in his mental health. Brandram’s death at home was ruled a suicide, a conclusion that the family believes is linked to the police’s handling of the case.
Accusations of Negligence and the Call for Accountability
In a formal statement, Hicks and Volker accused the Metropolitan Police of failing in their duty of care. They highlighted that the delays and errors in the investigation not only harmed Brandram but also left the real perpetrator of the Putney Bridge assault at large. The sisters demanded a thorough review of the police’s procedures and called for the force to be held accountable for the alleged mishandling of the case.
Police Response and Independent Oversight
The Metropolitan Police released a statement expressing condolences for Brandram’s death and confirming that the force had referred the matter to the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC). The IOPC will investigate the police’s conduct, including the handling of the forensic timeline and the release of Brandram’s identity to the media. The force also stated that it had complied with all procedural requirements before contacting Brandram’s family.
What Happens Next?
The investigation by the IOPC is expected to examine whether the Metropolitan Police breached any protocols and to recommend any necessary reforms. Meanwhile, Brandram’s sisters are seeking a formal apology and a review of the police’s internal processes. The case also raises broader questions about how law enforcement agencies manage high‑profile investigations and protect the rights of suspects who are not yet charged.
As the IOPC’s findings are released, the public will be watching closely to see whether the Metropolitan Police will face disciplinary action or systemic changes. The outcome of this case could set a precedent for how police handle similar situations in the future, potentially influencing policy on media leaks and suspect welfare.
Why This Matters
Brandram’s case underscores the delicate balance between public safety, media freedom, and the rights of individuals under investigation. It highlights the potential consequences when police procedures fail, affecting both the suspect’s wellbeing and the integrity of the justice system.
Key facts
- Brandram arrested in 2017 for Putney Bridge assault but never charged
- Media leaks led to online vilification
- Delayed forensic results worsened Brandram’s mental health
- Sisters accuse Met Police of negligence and duty‑of‑care breaches
- IOPC has been tasked with investigating the case
- Outcome may shape future police procedures
Why it matters
The case highlights the impact of police procedural failures on individual lives and public trust, raising critical questions about accountability and the protection of suspect rights.
Frequently asked questions
What was the 2017 Putney Bridge assault?
A woman was shoved onto Putney Bridge in London, an incident that led to Brandram’s arrest.
Why was Brandram never charged?
No conclusive evidence linked him to the assault, and the case remains unresolved.
What is the Independent Office for Police Conduct?
A watchdog body that investigates complaints and allegations of misconduct against police forces.
Will the Metropolitan Police face disciplinary action?
The IOPC will determine if any breaches occurred and recommend appropriate measures.
How can the public stay updated?
Follow official statements from the Metropolitan Police and the IOPC’s releases.
Sources
- [1] independent.co.uk — originally reported as “‘Putney pusher’ suspect’s family say he was ‘failed’ by Met Police”
