General Chat

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.

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

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.

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

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?

every dog has it's day.

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