Guest Bilo Posted 19 July 2012 Posted 19 July 2012 A police officer who hit Ian Tomlinson with a baton and pushed him to the ground at the G20 protests has been found not guilty of manslaughter. PC Simon Harwood, 45, of south London, denied the manslaughter, in April 2009, of Mr Tomlinson, 47, on the grounds that he used reasonable force. Mr Tomlinson, was pushed as he walked away from a police line in the City of London. He later collapsed and died. His family said they would be pursuing the case in a civil court. It is not clear if that will be against PC Harwood as an individual or against the Metropolitan Police. Mr Tomlinson's family cried in the public gallery as the verdict was read out "After the unlawful killing verdict at the inquest last year, we expected to hear a guilty verdict - not a not guilty verdict and it really hurts," Mr Tomlinson's stepson Paul King, said outside the court. "It's not the end, we are not giving up for justice for Ian." Members of Mr Tomlinson's family cried in the public gallery as the verdict was delivered at Southwark Crown Court. PC Harwood, in the dock, and his wife, in the public gallery, also cried. The jury of five men and seven women had considered their verdict for four days.Continue reading the main story Ian Tomlinson timeline 1 April 2009: Ian Tomlinson is caught up in a G20 protest. He collapses in the street and dies 4 April: Police say post-mortem examination show he died of "natural causes" 7 April: Video footage emerges of Mr Tomlinson being pushed to the ground by police officer April 2009: Further post-mortem tests find cause of death was abdominal bleeding, caused by blow 22 July: Prosecutors say there will be no charges as there is no agreement on death cause 3 May 2011: Inquest verdict of unlawful killing 20 June 2011: PC Simon Harwood charged with manslaughter after review of inquest evidence 18 June 2012: PC Harwood goes on trial at Southwark Crown Court 19 July 2012: PC Harwood found not guilty Timeline: Ian Tomlinson's deathDuring the trial, the police officer had accepted he was "wrong" to have hit and pushed Mr Tomlinson. He said had he realised at the time Mr Tomlinson was walking away from police lines, he "would not have gone near him". Father-of-nine Mr Tomlinson, a heavy drinker who had slept rough for a number of years, walked 75 yards before he collapsed. It has emerged that, in 2000, five years after he joined the Met, PC Harwood was involved in what was described at Mr Tomlinson's inquest as a "road rage" incident but his employment record was kept from the jury. He was off-duty and the other driver complained of unlawful arrest and abuse of authority. PC Harwood denied the accusation but retired on medical grounds in 2001 before a disciplinary hearing took place. He rejoined the Met in late 2004 - Scotland Yard's vetting unit had considered the road rage incident but had not reviewed the full file. Deborah Glass, deputy chairwoman of the Independent Police Complaints Commission, said after the verdict "significant questions" remained over PC Harwood's actions on 1 April 2009. Ian Tomlinson's stepson Paul King: "It really hurts, but it's not the end" She said whether or not those actions were reasonable would be tested at a misconduct hearing to be held in public in September. "PC Harwood was able to retire from the Metropolitan Police while facing disciplinary proceedings for previous alleged misconduct towards a member of the public," she said. "That he was then re-employed by the force, first in a civilian role and later as a constable, is simply staggering and raises considerable concerns about their vetting procedures." The Met Police, meanwhile, said it was clear "insufficient recording and checks meant detailed information regarding the officer's misconduct history was not shared at key points". "We got that wrong," it said in a statement, adding there had since been "huge changes" to its vetting system. "Now all applicants, including officers applying to become police staff, as well those re-joining or transferring from other police services, are formally vetted and this involves a full misconduct intelligence check."
Captain... Posted 19 July 2012 Posted 19 July 2012 PC Harwood was involved in what was described at Mr Tomlinson's inquest as a "road rage" incident So it was a case of PC gone mad...Edit: Having read it again more clearly, that makes no sense, but selective quoting to misrepresent the facts for the purposes of an attempt at humour is not illegal.
Head Honcho Posted 19 July 2012 Posted 19 July 2012 Think the CPS who would most probably have been in receipt of his past misdemeanours saw a chance to make a name for themselves here...........another fail! He doesn't seem like a particularly nice man but that doesn't make him guilty and the right decision for me.
Captain... Posted 19 July 2012 Posted 19 July 2012 Think the CPS who would most probably have been in receipt of his past misdemeanours saw a chance to make a name for themselves here...........another fail! He doesn't seem like a particularly nice man but that doesn't make him guilty and the right decision for me. If his actions are the direct result of a man's death and those actions are considered illegal then he is guilty, seeing as it was considered unlawful killing, so it must be considered his actions were illegal, so it should really be involuntary manslaughter, it doesn't specify what reasons were given for the not guilty verdict.
ADK Posted 19 July 2012 Posted 19 July 2012 The police always get away with it no matter what they do.
AdamN Posted 19 July 2012 Posted 19 July 2012 absolutely scandalous. getting like a police state Yeah, I've lost count of the amount of times I've been knocked over and killed by police. It's really starting to annoy me now!
Captain... Posted 19 July 2012 Posted 19 July 2012 Yeah, I've lost count of the amount of times I've been knocked over and killed by police. It's really starting to annoy me now! Have they been prosecuted each time? Or was it in the line of duty? The issue is not that a policeman knocked over and killed a man, it is that he has not been punished for it, despite the fact the man was doing nothing wrong. The worry is that if the police are not accountable for their actions they will start doing as they please not as they should.
AdamN Posted 19 July 2012 Posted 19 July 2012 Have they been prosecuted each time? Or was it in the line of duty? I dunno. Every time I died I missed the trial.
Captain... Posted 19 July 2012 Posted 19 July 2012 I dunno. Every time I died I missed the trial. Bummer, could you not have gone and haunted it? Or do you not believe in ghosts?
Big Dave Posted 19 July 2012 Posted 19 July 2012 Have they been prosecuted each time? Or was it in the line of duty? The issue is not that a policeman knocked over and killed a man, it is that he has not been punished for it, despite the fact the man was doing nothing wrong. The worry is that if the police are not accountable for their actions they will start doing as they please not as they should. If you see the footage before he was pushed over, he was quite clearly antagonising the police by walking extremely slowly in front of them whilst being told to move out of the way. He knew what was going on on the day and knew what he was doing. Whilst I have every sympathy for the family, his own actions and behaviour led to the incident. I would hate to be in the situation that the police are in in those circumstances. It is very much a high pressure situation with emotions running high on all sides.
Jon the Hat Posted 19 July 2012 Posted 19 July 2012 If you see the footage before he was pushed over, he was quite clearly antagonising the police by walking extremely slowly in front of them whilst being told to move out of the way. He knew what was going on on the day and knew what he was doing. Whilst I have every sympathy for the family, his own actions and behaviour led to the incident. I would hate to be in the situation that the police are in in those circumstances. It is very much a high pressure situation with emotions running high on all sides. Sorry, walking slowly away from the police justifies being hit with a baton? Not in my country. Whether hitting a guy with a baton constitues manslaughter I have no idea, but if you think the baton strike was justified based on that then I wonder about your motives.
AdamN Posted 19 July 2012 Posted 19 July 2012 Bummer, could you not have gone and haunted it? Or do you not believe in ghosts? I was too busy 'haunting' women's changing rooms for that.
Big Dave Posted 19 July 2012 Posted 19 July 2012 Sorry, walking slowly away from the police justifies being hit with a baton? Not in my country. Whether hitting a guy with a baton constitues manslaughter I have no idea, but if you think the baton strike was justified based on that then I wonder about your motives. I am not saying that it justifies him being hit, but his actions in a very volotile, high pressure situation were antagonising the police. Remember that many police were under attack on this day - remember the fire extinguisher being dropped off the top of a building onto the police lines? I am not a huge fan of the police, but I feel in this instance, with everything going on on the day, other factors must be considered.
Captain... Posted 19 July 2012 Posted 19 July 2012 If you see the footage before he was pushed over, he was quite clearly antagonising the police by walking extremely slowly in front of them whilst being told to move out of the way. He knew what was going on on the day and knew what he was doing. Whilst I have every sympathy for the family, his own actions and behaviour led to the incident. I would hate to be in the situation that the police are in in those circumstances. It is very much a high pressure situation with emotions running high on all sides. Please tell me what he did wrong there, he was not part of the protest. Sorry, walking slowly away from the police justifies being hit with a baton? Not in my country. Whether hitting a guy with a baton constitues manslaughter I have no idea, but if you think the baton strike was justified based on that then I wonder about your motives. This is the law on manslaughter: Under English law, according to R v Creamer,[13] a person is guilty of involuntary manslaughter when he or she intends an unlawful act that is likely to do harm to the person, and death results which was neither foreseen nor intended. The alternative name for this crime is constructive manslaughter. Although the accused did not intend to cause serious harm or foresee the risk of doing so, and although an objective observer would not necessarily have predicted that serious harm would result, the accused's responsibility for causing death is constructed from the fault in committing what might have been a minor criminal act. So the only really question is: Was hitting an unarmed, non aggressive man, walking along minding his own business with his back turned and his hands in his pockets unlawful? I hope so, and I am pretty sure if it had been anyone other than a policeman doing it, it would be involuntary manslaughter. The fact the inquest into the death classified it as an unlawful killing, pretty much confirms it really. So why wasn't he found guilty?
Captain... Posted 19 July 2012 Posted 19 July 2012 I am not saying that it justifies him being hit, but his actions in a very volotile, high pressure situation were antagonising the police. Remember that many police were under attack on this day - remember the fire extinguisher being dropped off the top of a building onto the police lines? I am not a huge fan of the police, but I feel in this instance, with everything going on on the day, other factors must be considered. That doesn't justify hitting someone, if I've had a bad day, and come under a lot of stress and pressure I can't then go home and hit my wife.
ADK Posted 19 July 2012 Posted 19 July 2012 Alot of professionals have to deal with antagonistic behaviour on a daily basis. If a teacher killed a pupil who was antagonising them would it be reasonable?
Fox92 Posted 19 July 2012 Posted 19 July 2012 From the video posted, he doesn't appear to be doing anything wrong at all. Just seems he was in the wrong place, at the wrong time.
Steven Posted 19 July 2012 Posted 19 July 2012 A choice piece of work. Pc Simon Harwood - 10 complaints in 12 years for the 'red mist' officer
Captain... Posted 19 July 2012 Posted 19 July 2012 A choice piece of work. Pc Simon Harwood - 10 complaints in 12 years for the 'red mist' officer Pc Simon Harwood – who admitted to “red mist mode†in the only disciplinary charge upheld against him - faced 10 complaints in 12 years while a serving officer in both the Metropolitan Police and Surrey forces but never had to answer one of the most serious charges against him. Now that sounds like PC gone mad.
Northants Fox 3 Posted 19 July 2012 Posted 19 July 2012 [/left][/size][/font][/color] Now that sounds like PC gone mad. :dry:
Saxondale Posted 19 July 2012 Posted 19 July 2012 What a complete c**t. Clearly a miscarriage of justice, this appears to have been manslaughter in its clearest form. A choice piece of work. Pc Simon Harwood - 10 complaints in 12 years for the 'red mist' officer I think the above paints enough of a picture of the bloke.
1964FOX Posted 19 July 2012 Posted 19 July 2012 Clearly the defence convinced the jury that the action taken was not illegal, but they did have all the evidence. If judged from the one video however you can take it from one who knows about these things, the force used was clearly excessive and not 'reasonable' in any sense of the word.
MooseBreath Posted 19 July 2012 Posted 19 July 2012 Clearly a case of the police looking after their own. Had it been a civilian killing another civilian it would have been guilty. Had it been a civilian killing a police officer, it would probably be life for murder. It's pretty hideous that they can do things like this, have it all reported openly and yet we all know they will end up getting away with it all. Makes me feel quite hopeless knowing the police are free to kill at will.
Guest Bilo Posted 19 July 2012 Posted 19 July 2012 I think the most damning indictment of all of this is that I wasn't at all surprised when the verdict was announced. Evidently in Britain in 2012, you can uphold the law by breaking it. Out of a police uniform, I'm pretty sure a man who has such an obvious violent streak would be in and out of prison habitually. This is a man who threw a man so hard onto a table, it broke upon impact. That would surely have set alarm bells ringing that, in testing circumstances, Simon Harwood was potentially a danger to the public. How about kneeing a man in the kidney? How about forcing a man over the door of his car with a side of falsifying arrest notes and unlawful arrest? Why wasn't he sacked and banned from ever donning a police uniform then? The revelations about his past ask very probing questions about the Met and their disciplinary procedures, Harwood had shown on numerous occasions that he was a thoroughly unpleasant character with a violent streak yet remained a Met officer till the day Ian Tomlinson died through no fault of his own. A black day for the police and for British justice indeed.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.