The Metropolitan Police has been told to investigate its handling of the arrest of Nicholas Brandram, the man suspected of being behind the notorious 2017 Putney Bridge attack in which a woman was pushed into the path of an approaching bus.
The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) decided on 25 September 2026 that the Met’s Directorate of Professional Standards should examine its officers’ conduct following Brandram’s death earlier that month. The review will consider whether his arrest was necessary and proportionate, how police engaged with the media and what steps officers took to consider his welfare.
Brandram, 44, was found dead at his home in Chiswick, west London, on 15 September. He had been arrested in June on suspicion of attempted grievous bodily harm in connection with the 2017 incident but was released under investigation without being charged.
His family has said they believe he took his own life following months of intense pressure linked to the police investigation. They have also maintained that he was not the person responsible for the attack.
The IOPC’s decision places the Metropolitan Police’s handling of the investigation under scrutiny, while the original case remains unresolved. It also raises wider questions about how police forces manage suspects’ welfare, communicate with the media and balance investigative requirements with the rights of people who have not been charged.
What happened in the Putney Pusher incident?
The incident that became known as the Putney Pusher attack took place on Putney Bridge in south-west London on 5 May 2017.
CCTV footage showed a jogger running towards a woman walking across the bridge before appearing to deliberately knock her into the road. She fell into the path of an approaching double-decker bus, narrowly avoiding being struck.
The bus driver, Oliver Salbris, swerved to avoid hitting the pedestrian. His quick reaction prevented what could have been a fatal collision.
The woman, who was 33 at the time, suffered minor injuries. Her identity has not been made public in the reporting surrounding the case.
The footage attracted widespread attention after the Metropolitan Police released it as part of an appeal for information. The incident became known internationally as the Putney Pusher case, with the video prompting public concern about pedestrian safety and apparently unprovoked violence in a busy London location.
The footage showed the seriousness of the incident, but identifying the person responsible proved considerably more difficult.
Why did the original police investigation close?
Following the attack, detectives launched an investigation to identify the jogger seen in the CCTV footage.
Police examined available recordings, appealed for witnesses and pursued potential suspects. More than 50 men were identified as people of interest during the investigation, while three men were arrested and subsequently released without charge.
Despite those efforts, officers did not establish sufficient evidence to bring a prosecution.
The Metropolitan Police closed the investigation in 2018 after concluding that officers had exhausted the available lines of inquiry at that stage.
The case nevertheless remained familiar to the public because of the footage and the circumstances surrounding the near collision. The video continued to circulate online, keeping attention on an incident that had not resulted in a criminal conviction.
The eventual arrest in 2026 reopened the possibility of progress after several years without a publicly announced breakthrough.
Nicholas Brandram’s arrest in 2026
The investigation took a significant turn in June 2026 when the Metropolitan Police arrested a 44-year-old man in connection with the original attack.
On 15 June, officers arrested the man at a property in west London on suspicion of attempted grievous bodily harm. The arrest came after police received new information in April that opened further lines of inquiry, according to the Metropolitan Police.
The man was subsequently identified as Nicholas Brandram, a former banker. His arrest attracted renewed media attention because of the long-running nature of the investigation and the seriousness of the original incident.
During the investigation, Brandram was also arrested on suspicion of possessing Class A and Class B drugs. These were separate allegations and should not be confused with the attempted grievous bodily harm suspicion connected to Putney Bridge.
In September, the Metropolitan Police confirmed that he had been released under investigation. This meant that he was no longer being held in custody, but officers had not formally ended their inquiries.
Crucially, Brandram was never charged in connection with the Putney Bridge attack. An arrest and release under investigation do not establish guilt, and no court determined that he was responsible for the incident.
The distinction is central to the case because the original attack remains without a publicly established perpetrator.
Nicholas Brandram’s death and his family’s response
Brandram was found dead at his home in Chiswick, west London, on the evening of 15 September 2026.
The Metropolitan Police confirmed that officers and London Ambulance Service personnel attended an address in the area after a man was found unresponsive. A 44-year-old man was pronounced dead at the scene.
Police initially described the death as unexpected but said it was not believed to be suspicious.
His family subsequently said they believed he had taken his own life following months of pressure associated with the investigation. They strongly disputed the suggestion that he was the person shown in the 2017 footage.
His sisters, Alexia Hicks and Sophie Voelcker, criticised the way the Metropolitan Police had handled the matter. They questioned the decision to arrest him and argued that the investigation had caused significant distress.
The family also claimed there was no forensic evidence connecting Brandram to the incident and that there was no credible evidence placing him on Putney Bridge when the attack occurred.
Those statements represent the family’s account and allegations about police conduct. They have not, by themselves, established what evidence investigators held or whether individual officers acted improperly.
The family has called for a thorough examination of the Metropolitan Police’s decisions, including its approach to the arrest, communication with the media and consideration of Brandram’s welfare.
Why has the IOPC ordered an investigation?
The Independent Office for Police Conduct is responsible for overseeing complaints and investigating serious matters involving police conduct in England and Wales.
After Brandram’s death, the Metropolitan Police made a mandatory referral to the watchdog. Such referrals allow the IOPC to consider whether the circumstances require further examination.
Following its assessment, the watchdog decided that the Met’s Directorate of Professional Standards should conduct an investigation into the force’s handling of the case.
The IOPC identified three important areas for examination.
Whether the arrest was necessary and proportionate
The investigation will examine the circumstances surrounding Brandram’s arrest and whether the decision was justified.
Police have powers to arrest individuals where the legal requirements are met, but those powers must be exercised lawfully and proportionately. The review will consider the necessity of the arrest in the circumstances and whether the approach taken was appropriate.
Police engagement with the media
The watchdog will also examine the Metropolitan Police’s communication with the media.
This issue has become particularly important because Brandram’s family believes information released by the police contributed to public speculation and his identification in subsequent reporting.
The Met has maintained that it did not publicly name Brandram when he was arrested or at any point before his death.
The review will need to establish what information was shared, when it was communicated and whether the force followed the relevant policies.
Consideration of Brandram’s welfare
The third area concerns how officers considered Brandram’s welfare during the investigation.
Being investigated for a serious offence can place considerable pressure on an individual, particularly when a case attracts widespread public attention. The watchdog wants the review to examine what consideration was given to his welfare and whether relevant police policies were followed.
The IOPC has also made clear that if the Met’s investigation concludes that there was no potential misconduct, its final report must still be submitted to the watchdog for review. This provides an additional level of independent oversight.
The decision does not mean that misconduct has been established. It means the circumstances require formal examination.
What has the Metropolitan Police said?
The Metropolitan Police has acknowledged the distress caused by Brandram’s death and the impact of a police investigation on individuals and their families.
Chief Superintendent Dan Knowles, who is responsible for policing in south-west London, said the force recognised the strain that being subject to an investigation could place on people close to the case.
He also confirmed that the investigation into the 2017 Putney Bridge incident remained ongoing following Brandram’s death.
The Met said that, after his release under investigation, officers had continued working on outstanding lines of inquiry and forensic examinations.
The force explained that investigations involving complex evidence and forensic work can take several months as officers gather and assess material.
Its position is that the original investigation has not formally concluded. However, the death of the man arrested in connection with the case creates an important distinction between the continuing investigation into the 2017 incident and the separate examination of police conduct.
The latter will focus on how officers dealt with Brandram, rather than determining his guilt through a criminal trial.
What happened at the inquest into Brandram’s death?
An inquest into Brandram’s death was opened at West London Coroner’s Court in September 2026.
Area coroner Melanie Lee confirmed that Brandram had failed to attend a family meal on the evening of 15 September. His brother-in-law subsequently went to his home after receiving no response and gained access using a spare key provided by a neighbour.
He found Brandram in an upstairs room. Emergency services attended, but he was pronounced dead at 20:58.
The coroner said there was no evidence of third-party involvement and that the death was not being treated as suspicious.
The inquest was opened and then suspended. This means the formal proceedings have not reached a final conclusion about the circumstances of his death.
It is important to distinguish the coroner’s proceedings from the IOPC investigation. An inquest examines the circumstances surrounding a person’s death, while the police conduct investigation examines whether officers acted appropriately.
The two processes address different questions, although information emerging from one may be relevant to the other.
Could the original Putney Bridge case still be investigated?
The Metropolitan Police has said its investigation into the 2017 incident remains ongoing, despite Brandram’s death.
However, the available public information does not establish whether detectives have identified another suspect or obtained evidence that could lead to a prosecution.
The original incident remains serious because the woman was pushed into the path of a moving bus and narrowly avoided being struck. The bus driver’s reaction prevented a potentially fatal collision.
The fact that an arrest was made nine years after the incident also demonstrates the difficulties that can arise in investigations where the available evidence does not initially identify a suspect.
New information can sometimes create additional investigative opportunities, even after a case has been closed. In this instance, the Metropolitan Police said information received in April 2026 opened new lines of inquiry.
Nevertheless, the death of Brandram does not establish who carried out the original attack. Nor does it mean that the police have publicly resolved the outstanding questions surrounding the incident.
Any further developments would depend on evidence gathered by investigators and whether it provides a basis for additional police action.
Why the Putney Pusher case raises questions about police accountability
The case has developed into two connected but separate matters: the search for the person responsible for the 2017 attack and the examination of how the Metropolitan Police handled its investigation into Brandram.
The distinction is important for public accountability.
Police forces must investigate serious allegations, particularly where CCTV footage appears to show an individual being pushed into the path of a moving vehicle. At the same time, people under investigation retain legal rights and should not be treated as guilty before a court has established their responsibility.
The circumstances also raise questions about how police forces assess the potential impact of an investigation on an individual’s welfare.
The IOPC’s decision to examine the necessity and proportionality of the arrest, media engagement and welfare considerations provides a framework for addressing those concerns.
However, the outcome should not be prejudged. The investigation must establish what officers knew at the relevant times, what decisions they made and whether those decisions complied with applicable procedures.
The Metropolitan Police will be expected to account for its actions through the review process, with the IOPC retaining oversight of the final report.
For the family, the investigation represents an opportunity to have their concerns formally examined. For the wider public, it is an important test of how police accountability works when a person dies after being investigated but before any criminal charge is brought.
The Putney Bridge attack remains a case without a publicly established perpetrator. The latest development has shifted attention towards police conduct, but the questions surrounding the original incident have not disappeared.
The outcome of the professional standards investigation and any further findings from the coroner’s proceedings will be important in establishing what happened in the months before Brandram’s death.