General Chat

I too agree with Piglets Pal, very well put that PP, :-D

every dog has it's day.

A civil court does not work on the basis of "reasonable doubt" but instead uses the principle of "balance of probability". It is perfectly proper to sue for damages when a family member, employee etc is unlawfully killed. Given the coroner's verdict and the film a civil court may well find not only against the officer but also his employer. It could open up a fairly big can of worms.

It is a very long standing principle of criminal law in the UK that a trial can only be held on the facts of the case not previous convictions etc. Without such a rule, which may seem to be tough justice to the redtops, normal administration of justice would be impossible.

Nevertheless the verdict of not guilty to manslaughter seems somewhat surprising as the frailty of a victim is not a defense. It would seem that the jury has decided that on the basis of the evidence there is reasonable doubt that the injury inflicted by the officer was the immediate cause of death, contradicting the coroner. That is jury trial, would you have anything else? Trial by Daily Mail for instance?

So now the Metropolitan Police will almost certainly have to fight an un winnable case in the civil court and face even more reputational damage. No doubt senior plods will also think about civil cases and policies such as kettling and high speed pursuits.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

If the Met had been doing their job properly it wouldn't have happened, he should never have been re-employed by them.

The Guardian

"Harwood quit the Metropolitan police on health grounds in 2001, shortly before a planned disciplinary hearing into claims that while off-duty he illegally tried to arrest a man in a road rage incident, altering notes retrospectively to justify his actions.

He was nonetheless able to join another force, Surrey, returning to the Met in 2005. In a string of other alleged incidents Harwood was accused of having punched, throttled, kneed or threatened other suspects while in uniform, although only one complaint was upheld.

The Independent Police Complaints Commission described the chain of events around Harwood's rejoining his old force before becoming part of its elite Territorial Support Group as "simply staggering"."

I think we deserve better,

Gwynne

What do the pundits say about this case which slipped under the radar? Or is Tomlinsons life of greater importance and more deserving of a conviction?

http://www.jarrowandhebburngazette.com/news/crime/s-tyne-man-cleared-of-friend-s-manslaughter-1-4729158

The point is - very few people are convicted of anything under these sort of circumstances. Or are we saying that a police officer should be subject to a lesser degree of proof than anyone else? If so, just say so. Then sit back and imagine the type of police service you would have. Society gets the police it deserves - a well founded and very true cliche I'm afraid.

another thug but this time he wears the police uniform :-(

I am glad I was not on the jury, so hard to make the right decision without the full picture.

This man is not a nice person but the system is what is wrong, the vetting system should have uncovered that he had previous accusations against him, he was able to take medical retirement, they say to avoid prosecution - I don't know that for a fact. However, if that is true he should not have been allowed to re-join the police force.

I think the family are taking out a private prosecution, not to get money but to get an apology from the Met.

PP, There is a distinct difference between murder and manslaughter

Without going into all the differing types/degrees of murder and manslaughter

Murder is when a person by his/her actions intended the outcome of their action to result in the death or their victim

Manslaughter is when the actions of a person resulted in the death of another but their was no “intention” to kill

The film did not show Mr. Tomlinson being killed/murdered

In cases where the cause of death is not known/obvious then its up to the coroner to decide, In this case The coroner returned the verdict that he had been “unlawfully killed”

So he was either murdered or died of injuries inflicted by another

The main problem with the criminal justice system in this county is that of “reasonable doubt”

How do you define reasonable doubt? What is reasonable to some is not reasonable to others,

In most cases the defence will often use this part of the trial to over state “reasonable doubt” to sway members of a jury to returning a “not guilty” verdict rather than convicting and "risking" sending an innocent man to prison,

This imo is one area where our criminal justice system appears to flawed

Roy

Thanks Harry - the bit about 'intent' was in my mind but just could not drag it from the depths.

Basically i agree with Piglet's pal (although i don't believe you need 'intent' to be convicted of manslaughter.)

The PC is obviously not a nice man, however the oft repeated on here is that 'the police protect their own' is obviously wrong in this instance. The man was put on trial and the jury returned the verdict.

Happy days

The film taken by a tourist does not show Mr. Tomlinson being killed, it shows him being hit by a police baton and then being pushed in the back whereupon he fell to the ground. He was helped up, walked away and collapsed very shortly after.

PC Harwood was tried in a court, the jury was made up of ordinary citizens, not police. They could only convict on the evidence provided, which is the way the law stands. And whilst in his summing up the judge will offer guidance as to whether someone is guilty or not - it all rests on the decision of the jury. And this jury upon hearing all the facts of this case from the prosection, the defence and the judges summing up, decided upon a not guilty decision.

In all trials here you are never told beforehand of any previous convictions etc., so the person on trial gets a fair hearing. PC Hardwood has never been convicted or prosecuted for anything in the past they were all accusations.

The letter of the law in this case will be in relation to did PC Harwood intend to kill Mr. Tomlinson, did he know prior to the incident that Mr. Tomlinson had health issues. The answer to both is NO.

Now I personally think that this police officer is not a very nice person and that there is no smoke without fire in regard to his history. He is now to be investigated by the Police Standards Commission. I feel certain that from this he will be dismissed from the force.

Whilst I am very sorry to Mr. Tomlinson's family, and I understand that they now feel the need to take out a private prosecution. They should now walk away with dignity and mourn their loss. No talking to the press or selling their story.

There are never any winners in a situation like this, the families on all sides will suffer. And as usual the Police in general will all be tarred with the same brush.

We all hope that something like this well never happen again.

Wrong, wrong , wrong.

I hope they can finance a civil action and get justice.

I understand from this morning's local news, that the family are looking at taking out a private prosecution.

Absolutely disgraceful.

Julia in Derbyshire

To be fair to the policeman who killed Ian Tomlinson
there was absolutely no evidence,


apart from that film of him doing it

I think the family should consider a private prosecution

Dear All

Hello

No justice again.......it is a repeated phrase.

At the inquest into Mr Tomlinson's death, a verdict of unlawful killing was recorded, usually a strong indicator that if criminal charges are made,
a guilty verdict would be reached.

Obviously not in this case.

Absolutely disgusted.

Take gentle care all
Sincere wishes
Elizabeth, EOS
xx

If it was Fred Bloggs off a council estate he'd be looking at 10 yrs possibly. But they look after their own. However, people dont forget, so I wonder if Harwood is feeling quite so cocky now.....

Must admit....l thought it was wrong right from the start. Infact l was very upset to see how the PC handled the situation, thats without knowing his past. For him to be found Not Guilty is quite shocking.
Mr Tomlinson l think had drink problems, but he may not have died anyways, being hit in the kidney with a baton would have been quiet damaging, then pushed to the ground.

l hope some how the PC goes back to court and gets sentenced!!

jude

The man is a thug

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/pc-simon-harwood--10-complaints-in-12-years-for-the-red-mist-officer-7959576.html

He has used the system to avoid being brought to account several time in the past the police will never be any good at vetting their own and have always closed ranks when their is a problem


Roy

All of his previous work and arrests made should now be re-investigated, how can a corrupt person like this (am trying to be polite here, its hard) be trusted to investigate ANYTHING fairly. So much corruption about, Im not exactly amazed he walked away. Look at all the complaints made against him, including assault.