LATEST UPDATE….
G20 riots: policeman who stuck Ian Tomlinson faced two previous aggression inquiries
Telegraph: PC Simon Harwood, the police officer who struck Ian Tomlinson minutes before he died, was previously investigated twice over his alleged aggressive behaviour.
Ian Tomlinson death: police officer will not face criminal charges
Guardian: G20 riot officer filmed striking down newspaper seller will not face charges because of postmortem conflicts, CPS rules
The police officer caught on video during last year’s G20 protests striking a man who later died will not face criminal charges, the Crown Prosecution Service announced today. Keir Starmer, the director of public prosecutions, said there was “no realistic prospect” of a conviction, because of a conflict between the postmortem examinations carried out after the death of Ian Tomlinson last year.
CPS decision
In a detailed letter setting out its reasons, the CPS said that the actions of the officer – seen striking Tomlinson with a baton then shoving him to the ground in the footage – amounted to assault.
It said: “The CPS concluded that there is sufficient evidence to provide a reasonable prospect of proving that the actions of PC ‘A’ in striking Mr Tomlinson with his baton and then pushing him over constituted an assault. At the time of those acts Mr Tomlinson did not pose a threat … There is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of proving that his actions were disproportionate and unjustified.”
But the CPS went on to explain the obstacles to a prosecution posed by the subsequent postmortems.
The first police account, that he died from a heart attack, was confirmed by a pathologist, Freddy Patel, in the initial postmortem examination.
But a second postmortem examination, conducted on behalf of the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC), found Tomlinson died from internal bleeding.
Today the CPS said it could not bring a manslaughter charge because the conflicting medical evidence meant prosecutors “would simply not be able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that there was a causal link between Mr Tomlinson’s death and the alleged assault on him”.
It said it could not bring a charge for criminal assault because too much time had elapsed: a charge must be brought within six months. The CPS also ruled out bringing charges of actual bodily harm, and misconduct in public office.
The death of Ian Tomlinson – decision on prosecution
Statement by Diane Abbott MP: Questions raised over CPS handling of case following lengthy investigation.
“Five years to the day after the death of Jean Charles de Menezes at the hands of our police, it appears that lessons have not been learnt. The outcome of this investigation gives rise to grave concern. And the conduct of the CPS, particularly their delay in taking up the case in the first place, has been unsatisfactory
“I am at a loss to understand why the investigation took sixteen months to reach a conclusion as I believe that if the roles had been reversed, and a civilian assault led to a police officers death in this way, the investigation might have been somewhat quicker and reached a very different conclusion. It would be inappropriate to level accusations of misconduct at the CPS at this time but I think an inquiry into the investigation, as well as the incident as a whole, is highly necessary.
“Without a doubt this verdict benefits absolutely nobody, particularly the CPS and the officer in question. I now find it very difficult to see how a breakdown in the relationship between the public and our police forces will be avoided”.
It is quite remarkable that the actions of police officers at the G20 sixteen months time ago should result (a) in an acquittal in the case of Sgt Smellie and (b) a decision that there is insufficiently clear medical evidence to bring a prosecution.
I can understand the rationale behind CPS prosecutions that it must be in the public interest and there must be sufficient clarity of evidence to warrant bringing a prosecution. The IPCC concluded their initial investigation in just four months, albeit after initially claiming there was nothing suspicious about the death for almost a week until the release of footage of the incident obtained by the Guardian forced a U-turn. and passed the file to the CPS. It is most unfortunate that delays precluded the bringing of, as a minimum, assault charges.
Part of the problem – there is no clear explanation as to the need for almost a year to elapse for the CPS to make a decision, save for having to return to the IPCC several times for clarification – is the conflict between the medical experts. The initial postmortem was carried out by Dr Freddy Patel
The Coroner for the District appointed a pathologist, Dr Patel, to carry out a post mortem. He did so on 3 April 2009. No other medical expert was present. Because Mr Tomlinson had walked some distance from the incident in Royal Exchange before collapsing in Threadneedle Street, the two events were not immediately linked and, when he carried out his post mortem, Dr Patel was not aware of the incident involving PC ‘A’. He concluded that Mr Tomlinson’s death was “consistent with natural causes” and he gave the cause of death as “coronary artery disease“.
The family and the IPCC sought a second post mortem and this was undertaken by a second pathologist, Dr Cary, on 9 April 2009. He concluded that whilst Mr Tomlinson had a partial blockage of the artery, his death was the result of abdominal haemorrhage from blunt force trauma to the abdomen, in association with alcoholic cirrhosis of the liver. It was Dr Cary’s view that when Mr Tomlinson fell, his elbow had impacted in the area of his liver causing an internal bleed which had led to his death a few minutes later.
On 22 April 2009 the Metropolitan Police Directorate of Professional Standards instructed another pathologist, Dr Shorrock, to perform a third post mortem. Dr Shorrock agreed with Dr Cary’s conclusion.
Other expert evidence was obtained from Dr Wilson, Professor Williamson, Dr Alexander and Dr Sheppard. Their evidence related to accident and emergency procedures, issues relating to the liver and microscopic changes to tissue.
Channel 4 Notes…
G20 Tomlinson pathologist accused of misconduct
The pathologist who ruled Ian Tomlinson died of a heart attack at the G20 protests is accused of misconduct in four other post mortems. Channel 4 News Home Affairs Correspondent Simon Israel was at the General Medical Council hearing.
Dr Freddy Patel appeared before the General Medical Council on Monday accused of misconduct over his failings in a total of four autopsies performed between September 2002 and August 2004.
We seem to have a credibility problem – credibility in terms of respect for the police and the fact that justice appears to have been ‘thwarted’ by events beyond the control of the CPS in terms of the quality of medical testimony.
The second post mortem indicates: ” He concluded that whilst Mr Tomlinson had a partial blockage of the artery, his death was the result of abdominal haemorrhage from blunt force trauma to the abdomen, in association with alcoholic cirrhosis of the liver. It was Dr Cary’s view that when Mr Tomlinson fell, his elbow had impacted in the area of his liver causing an internal bleed which had led to his death a few minutes later.”
Had Ian Tomlinson not been pushed over from behind by a police officer, it is unlikely he would have fallen over, it is unlikely that he would, therefore had died shortly after. A police officer escapes justice because of highly technical issues of causation and the way assault laws are framed. As others have observed on Twitter – what if Ian Tomlinson or you, or me, had pushed a police officer over from behind and he died? Would we have escaped justice? Pretty shoddy stuff? Did the CPS do their job here? Why was Dr Patel involved in the post-mortem if there were issues about his competence generally – issues about his competence arising before the tragic death of Ian Tomlinson?
Jenny Jones, a member of the Metropolitan Police Authority, said: “It’s clearly an outcome that satisfies absolutely nobody and everybody comes out of it badly.
“The reputation of the police is poor, and morale won’t be very good if public perception is that the police constantly get away with crimes and are never brought to justice.
“If everybody had moved a bit faster we might have actually been in the time-frame for an assault charge to be brought,” she added.
Expressing “regret” for Mr Tomlinson’s family, a Metropolitan Police spokesman, said: “There will, of course, be an inquest where the facts will be heard publicly. This is important for the family of Ian Tomlinson as well as Met officers and Londoners.
“We now await the IPCC’s investigation report before being able to carefully consider appropriate misconduct proceedings,” he said.
Deborah Glass, from the Independent Police Complaints Commission, said the circumstances of Mr Tomlinson’s death will now be “rightly scrutinised” at an inquest.
She said: “We will provide a report on the officer’s conduct to the Metropolitan Police within the next few days.
“The Met will need to provide us with its proposals regarding misconduct.”
ObiterJ writes…….
Death of Mr Ian Tomlinson – no charges to be brought
Charon QC 
It’s simple
If you want a quick autopsy that admonishes all blame, you hire the worst possible doctor, he’ll give it to you in exchange for a bottle of whisky.
The CPS is unfit for purpose and has been for years. It is designed to protect the Police and Government at the cost of the innocent (or the guilty for that matter, it doesn’t matter as long as the long arm of the State is protected)
It is not a device to bring justice to the people, to protect the people, to promote peace amongst the people. It is a quango to justify and promote the political will of our masters.
Today is also the 5th anniversary of an electrician murdered by a gang of armed London thugs. The police are not looking for suspects.
Stay safe out there. I have taught my children to avoid hi viz vests at all costs. They have the biggest guns and nothing to lose, including their pensions.
The IPCC is still to close to the Police. This is the second attempt to get an independent investigative authority for the Police both attempts have ended up with too close to the Police. I wander where the investigators have been recruited from, the Police perchance?
oh boy.
The British police are probably the only routinely unarmed force in the world. As for “the biggest guns”, I invite you to hackney were our yoof have bigger guns.
Regardless of Mr Patel and causation issues, surely the bigger issue is the only form of manslaughter applicable here is “Unlawful and dangerous act” manslaughter. (I wouldn’t the think “gross negligence” Adamako test is relevant on these facts.)
For that charge to apply, there has to be an unlawful act. I just wonder if a cop in the discharge of his duties would be “unlawful”. I am not an expert on police powers, but officers do have to justify every use of force (every time an asp is drawn etc)
I would think the officer would say that he believed Tomlinson was “knowingly contravening direction” s32(2) ASBA 2003 – and that he was carrying out his lawful duties.
No unlawful act, no UDA manslaughter.
No “gross negligence” here, so I don’t know what you want the CPS to charge ploddy with.
Shit, I know reference to the law makes me sound like a loon… call me old fashioned, but I still believe in the rule of law.
I have no doubt Mr Tomlinson’s family will seek justice in the civil courts. I have no idea re their prospects of success, but understand that their case would have been a bit of a slam dunk with the benefit of a criminal conviction.
Kris (nice spelling by the way), the Police can kill people with no redress.
You need to look at the 9 rules of policing. After all, we as a species survived 2 million years without them
1 The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.
2 The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon public approval of police actions.
3 Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observance of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public.
4 The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force.
5 Police seek and preserve public favour not by catering to public opinion but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.
6 Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient.
7 Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
8 Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.
9 The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.
Kris – I, too, am keen on the rule of law. I often write posts to put the legal analysis to counter the impression given on twitter et al of the way the law works.
On this one – the CPS clearly found::…”evidence to provide a reasonable prospect of proving that the actions of PC ‘A’ in striking Mr Tomlinson with his baton and then pushing him over constituted an assault. At the time of those acts Mr Tomlinson did not pose a threat … There is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of proving that his actions were disproportionate and unjustified.”
As I said above – time limits precluded a prosecution for assault. Where actions are ‘unjustified and disproprortionate’ are issues of gross negligence relevant?
As you say – the civil action will (or ought to) follow and shouldn’t take too long in view of discoverable evidence?
We shall see.
I am but a humble commenter on matters as they arise – I do not seek to nor pretend to have the answers. I am always grateful to those who come on to the blog to comment, from expertise or otherwise, on the issues I raise. That is why I blog.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_Principles
Old Holborn – thanks for both comments.
Peelian principles… seems pretty good to me
Kris – are you really a lawyer? I am a civil barrister and so know very little (almost nothing) about criminal law. This means that I would ordinarily not get involved in discussions involving the technical aspects of criminal law.
However, what I do know, from my law student days, is that the police can only use reasonable force. I also know what an assault is.
I would also hope that as a lawyer I have a relatively good sense of judgment. I would have thought that 99% of juries properly directed would take the view that striking someone on the legs and then pushing them over with force from behind while they were walking away, unarmed and with their hands in their pockets would be sufficient to convict the officer.
As a liberal lawyer, who actually thinks we have a fairly decent justice system, this case troubles me deeply. You can’t have an effective justice system if no one has confidence in the police’s actions.
The senior officers don’t seem to understand that. That harms us all.
I hope The White Rabbit pops in to look at this one – he knows a thing or two about these matters1
The Police are Above The Law.
End of.
If a civilian had pushed a Police Officer in that way – (please see the video) – a charge of common assault (at least) would almost certainly have been raised immediately. Once the “information” is with the Magistrates’ Court then it matters not how long it takes to get the case to trial since the 6 months rule only applies to the filing of the information. In this case, the 6 months rule has proved to be very handy from the point of view of the Police.
http://obiterj.blogspot.com/2010/07/death-of-mr-ian-tomlinson-no-charges-to.html
contains link to the video etc.
Interesting also that the first Coroner (Dr Patel) did not know that Mr Tomlinson had been struck/pushed. How comes that nobody informed him? Does he not watch the news?
Also, Patel did not retain the body fluids recovered – (some 3 litres). It must surely have been known to him that the Police had massive interest in his post-mortem. He must have known that he was not dealing with an ordinary death on the streets. If he knew of the Police interest then one would expect him to know that a second PM might be requested. This is NOT uncommon. If so, those fluids ought to have been retained since a second and subsequent inquest does not get to examine the body in its initial state.
http://london.indymedia.org/articles/938
thought you kids might find this interesting.
If there was indeed a ASB dispersal order in place, the cops would have the power as outlined above under ASB legislation.
Otherwise, if CPS thinks the cop exceeded his powers and the assault was unlawful, then why an assault charge when a man is dead? Any unlawful act (even common law assault) is enough for Unlawful and dangerous act manslaughter.
I don’t understand the trouble for the CPS with causation. Patel is discredited. The other 2 support the case that the shove led to T’s death.
If it is found that there was no dispersal order in place and the cop had no power to tell T to move it we’ll make you, and if you cannot bring a case for UDA manslaughter in assault cases older than 6 months, then yes, some CPS heads should roll, starting with Keir Starmer.
today conspires to give us so many pieces of news that should remind us how badly we stink. breathe really deep and smell it. smell the lies they insist on telling us as if we wouldn’t understand or aren’t worthy of the truth.
tomlinson…
we propose to send back a boy from iraq who may or may not be 16 whose parents were murdered and fears the same fate.
we are shown not just to have colluded in rendition but to have practised it ourselves.
al megrahi – a man possibly framed as a sop to the americans: the scots probably pressed by the english government to release him to get their hands on libyan oil; the doctor they used was paid for by libya to give a negative health assessment; the scots released him and the english politicos of all parties slag them off to curry american favour … is there a single piece of truth in that story?
‘The only thing we knew for sure about Henry Porter is that his name wasn’t Henry Porter’
[…] a cogent explanation of the whole farrago, read CharonQC and Obiter […]
Along with millions of other concerned citizens, I am disgusted, appalled and outraged at the decision not to prosecute PC Simon Harwood.
Keir Starmer’s statement was riddled with errors and obvious inconsistencies. He is clearly unfit for the office of DPP and should be removed immediately.
http://peterreynolds.wordpress.com/2010/07/24/keir-starmer-the-next-lord-widgery/
Some questions, if I may:
On what basis did the IPCC reveal its ‘recommendation’ to prosecute? The IPCC has no statutory obligation to recommend criminal prosecution and is not bound by the Code of Conduct for Crown Prosecutors. Did it have any business trying to dictate a course of action to the CPS?
To what extent is the officer’s past relevant? His previous alleged misconduct might be admissible before a jury but it has to be relevant. Does it tend to show a disposition to act in a particular way? It seems impossible to say without knowing the details. I make the same observation about the casual assumption that the pathologist’s view must be flawed because he is facing criticism for unrelated matters.
If these points are irrelevant, then many of the calls for prosecution seem to do nothing more than rely on a wish to see things a particular way – or the view that ‘he did it before so he must have done it this time’ – rather than the objective examination of the evidence which is generally agreed to be necessary before making serious accusations against someone. There is a whiff of hypocrisy here as the ability to take previous conduct into account is often said to be a bad thing. If anyone is adopting the view that it is ok to use it when the accused is a police officer, they ought to stop.
As to manslaughter the rule is that the force must be unlawful (an issue of fact) and must cause some injury (another issue of fact) which causes the death (another issue of fact). In order to secure a conviction the Prosecution would have to make the jury sure of each issue. That the CPS decided that this was likely to be an assault is a view on 1/3 of the case. On what basis, please, is it being asserted that the decision that there is a less than 50% chance of success is a political one?
The view that there should be a prosecution anyway, on the other hand does strike me as political. In most cases, a fair conclusion that a conviction was unlikely would be sufficient to ensure that neither the accused nor the family of the victim were put through the emotional wringer of a trial. My experience of experiments in justice where there is a trial without the likelihood of conviction test applying, is that this decision is the right one.
Finally, it is depressing that in suitable political circumstances, a great many people who would otherwise argue that accidents can happen and that a rush to retributive justice is unseemly, can reverse themselves in an instant. I hold no brief for the police officer: it seems to me that the real issue is not whether he committed a minor assault (at worst) but whether he should have been permitted to regain his post after leaving the force once. That is a question for more senior personnel and it is being obscured in the quest to ensure that a man who pushed someone over when he did not have to, although in the middle of a riot, should face his trial for an utterly unintended and unanticipated consequence.
Simon Myerson QC
Simon – thanks for your useful questions above.
I am not, as you know, a criminal lawyer. My academic side has been in the field of Contract, Tort, and more recently an interest in civil liberties and human rights. Criminal Law, however, has long been of interest – but my expertise extends only to the extent of the ‘man on the Clapham omnibus reading Smith & Hogan’.
1. I cannot see any bar to the IPCC making representations to the CPS but it is clear, from your first paragraph, that this is not the usual course of events
2. Your point in relation to previous conduct is an important one and you are right.
3. “As to manslaughter the rule is that the force must be unlawful (an issue of fact) and must cause some injury (another issue of fact) which causes the death (another issue of fact)….”
It is clear from the statement of Keir Starmer QC, the DPP, that the CPS had little difficulty in forming a view on the first element. Indeed Starmer makes that point quite clear.
“The first issue that the CPS considered was whether the actions of PC ‘A’ were lawful. Having analysed the available evidence very carefully, the CPS concluded that there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of proving that the actions of PC ‘A’ in striking Mr Tomlinson with his baton and then pushing him over constituted an assault. At the time of those acts, Mr Tomlinson did not pose a threat to PC ‘A’ or any other police officer. Whilst the officer was entitled to require Mr Tomlinson to move out of Royal Exchange, there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of proving that his actions were disproportionate and unjustified.
Having concluded that the officer’s actions could constitute an assault, the CPS then considered the possible criminal charges…..
The difficulty lies, as you point out, in the second and third elements of the offence. The medical evidence was not sufficiently clear to bring a prosecution with a realistic prospect of conviction.
The DPP formed the view that while the conflict on cause of death between the pathologists would not have precluded the bringing of a prosecution “Dr Patel would have to be called at trial as a prosecution witness as to the primary facts.”
The “CPS concluded that the evidence of those primary facts undermined the basis upon which the other experts reached their conclusions about the cause of death. As a result, the CPS would simply not be able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that there was a causal link between Mr Tomlinson’s death and the alleged assault upon him.
That being the case, there is no realistic prospect of a conviction for unlawful act manslaughter.”
This also precluded the bringing of a case – : “Assault occasioning actual bodily harm would require the prosecution to prove that the alleged assault on Mr Tomlinson caused him actual bodily harm.”
A prosecution for ‘simple’ assault was time barred. The DPP does not give a detailed reason in that statement as to why the delay arose.
It is widely believed – I have seen no documentary evidence – that there have been 1000 deaths on police custody without a single prosecution being brought. Sgt Smellie was acquitted by a district judge of charges in relation to his conduct.
The video evidence of PC Simon Harwood pushing Mr Tomlinson over is clear – the unlawful act referred to by the DPP.
That it now transpires that Dr Patel is being investigated – and there were prior misgivings as to his competence – one wonders why Dr Patel was selected as the pathologist for such an obviously sensitive case?
There are many commentators on blogs, twitter – and some in the media – who express discontent with police, ranging from the absurd to the well thought out and not unreasonable.
The Police themselves have expressed misgivings about this case – and certainly the appointment of Harwood to the TSG, after difficulties experienced in his previous force, is a matter for investigation by Police.
I do not see the decision of Keir Starmer QC as political. I see a DPP faced with a very real problem – but would it not have been advisable to accept the conflict between the pathologists and put the case to the jury? This hasn’t been fully explained by anyone – and is certainly beyond me.
Would it have unfair as you suggest in your comment above?
Given your particular experience as a Silk with many years of practice in the Criminal courts, you are able to give a view?
Given the difficulties experienced in this case – a source of frustration to many and, I suspect, to the CPS also it is clear that procedures need to be tightened up in terms of the recruitment of pathologists and procedures to ensure that time limits for bringing prosecutions do not expire. Or is that being unreasonable, neigh naive?
There is a widespread feeling that had a member of the public assaulted a police officer from behind with a baton a prosecution would have brought. Is that an unreasonable feeling?
This case and the Sgt Smellie case have not done the Police any favours in terms of public perception – and it is that perception which becomes a political issue, not the law itself?
It is important to get a clear understanding when important cases like this come along – but the newspapers don’t always get it right and, certainly, general commentators like me can only really try and report as we find. It is particularly helpful when specialists, with experience, are prepared to give of their time and put forward analysis.
Simon, you say that this was an “utterly unintended and unanticipated consequence.” to justify the lack of bringing this case to court, I would ask in reply what is the point then to charging anyone with Manslaughter then? the essence of which is that there is no intention in the death
“That it now transpires that Dr Patel is being investigated – and there were prior misgivings as to his competence – one wonders why Dr Patel was selected as the pathologist for such an obviously sensitive case?”
I believe that at the time he was barred from doing forensic autopsies, but could do “non-suspicious” work. Given the circumstances (see CPS statement), when he did the initial autopsy, it was not known that Ian Tomlinson had been hit before he died. It was therefore treated as “man collapses in street”, rather than “man collapses after being shoved by PC”.
“There is a widespread feeling that had a member of the public assaulted a police officer from behind with a baton a prosecution would have brought. Is that an unreasonable feeling?”
Doesn’t that imply that the motivations for such a prosecution would have less to do with the evidence than a desire to see someone hang?
“As to manslaughter the rule is that the force must be unlawful (an issue of fact) and must cause some injury (another issue of fact) which causes the death (another issue of fact). In order to secure a conviction the Prosecution would have to make the jury sure of each issue. That the CPS decided that this was likely to be an assault is a view on 1/3 of the case”.
Thank you , Simon for clearly and concisely setting out the three-pronged test.
I’m still banging the “unlawfulness” drum and I’ll tell you for why.
That there was an injury and that Mr T is dead is not disputed. The CPS say the issue is causation.
Surely the CPS have run cases with weaker causal links than T’s.
I am reminded of R v Watson (1989) & R v Mckechnie (1992) and wonder if causation was the genuine issue for the CPS in this case, why they didn’t put it in front of a jury? The CPS don’t need to be “satisfied so as to be sure” – the jury does.
I don’t usually indulge in conspiracy theories, but I can’t help but wonder if the Government really don’t want to have a discussion of the Police power to disperse under the ASB legislation.
I say that, becasue I just cannot for the life of me see how the causation point in this case is so weak that it would be either unreasonable or not in the public interest to run it.
[…] This is Simon Myerson QC’s comment on the original blog post Some questions, if I may: […]
When shove comes to push.
I am not a lawyer, and with respect to criminal law I don’t get near the knowledge of the man on the Clapham Bus reading Sherlock Holmes. But I do wonder about the language and framing used in this awful case.
Why is PC Harwood said to have pushed Ian Tomlinson, when it is clear from the video that it was an aggressive shove?
Why is the medical evidence said to be conflicting, when it is clear that the crucial bit of evidence (fluid from the abdominal cavity) was thrown away and not tested for proportion of blood in it ?
Why is such weight put on different opinions from the pathologists, when it is clear that a second post mortem was requested precisely because the first pathologist’s report was unreliable?
To suggest that for Harwood what happened was an “utterly unintended and unanticipated consequence” is a tautologically, vastly over-generous interpretation.
A more careful analysis of the video footage shows what a deliberate and calculated assault PC Simon Harwood carried out. Harwood came at Tomlinson, an innocent bystander, from behind, without any warning, struck him first with the baton to disable Tomlinson’s left leg and then placed his foot behind Tomlinson’s right leg before striking him hard from behind so that he must fall forward without any chance of regaining his balance. Harwood did this without any cause but clearly with the intention of causing harm and entirely recklessly as to the consequences.
Forget manslaughter. This is more than enough to substantiate a charge of murder.
It is clear that PC Simon Harwood is a thug who should and hopefully still will suffer severe punishment for his conduct on that fateful day. He must, at least, be dismissed from the police.
The far, far more important question is about the integrity of the DPP. He has failed himself, every lawyer, policeman and citizen through this grave misjudgment. I do not understand how such an obviously intelligent man can make such a crass mistake. Any concern for the “public interest” at all would have resulted in putting all the points at issue before a jury and that is what should have happened.
The CPS has either been incompetent, corrupt or both.
How is it “murder”. The test for murder is intent to kill or cause GBH. Specific intent.
Ploddy shoved T and wacked the back of his leg.
How do you draw an intent to kill or cause GBH from those facts?
you don’t.
@Kris Thursday, July 22, 2010 at 8:19 pm
“The British police are probably the only routinely unarmed force in the world.”
They’re not, New Zealand, Norway and Ireland all were also routinely unarmed last time I looked.
“As for “the biggest guns”, I invite you to hackney were our yoof have bigger guns.”
They really don’t.
“I would think the officer would say that he believed Tomlinson was “knowingly contravening direction” s32(2) ASBA 2003 – and that he was carrying out his lawful duties.”
There was no dispersal zone in place in the Ward of Cornhill, where Ian Tomlinson was attacked.
Even if there were, it is difficult to see how the level of force could be considered reasonable to effect such dispersal.
Charles de-Menzes – Ian Tomlinson – Pathologist Dr Shorrock – involved in more controversy… It’s being claimed there have been several cover-ups involving the police, the University Hospital of North Staffordshire [UHNS] and the two pathologists Dr Kolar for the prosecution, and Dr Shorrock for the defence who carried out the post-mortem on the body of murdered Glenn Hollinshead back in May 2008. Dr Shorrock concluded a ‘second weapon’ was used to kill Glenn, following the strange case of Sabina Eriksson, the other half of her twin sister Ursula, who in a joint enterprise and suicidal attempt on the M6 motorway on the 17th May 2008, ran out into the oncoming traffic with Ursula being ploughed down by a 40 ton lorry, alongside Sabina being knocked into the air like a rag doll as she dived into the path of a hurtling Silver VW Polo.
Dr Shorrock states: “…I cannot completely exclude the ‘possibility’ that ‘there was more than one [weapon].’ On page 8, paragraph D, he further states: “…The wounds are all consistent with having been caused by a knife. The ‘only one’ whose dimensions are likely to accurately correspond to those of the causative weapon is (No2).” ‘…the only one’ being wound No 2, is the wound to the heart.
This evidence wasn’t discovered until recently in August 2012, it was never produced or heard in court and until now. After 16 months of maintaining her innocence for murder, Sabina then pleaded guilty to ‘manslaughter’, due to ‘diminished responsibility’ and received 5 years in prison. She was released after two years and then returned to Norway in early 2011.
Despite the twins crazed actions, and that they were first arrested under Section 136 of the 1983 Mental Health Act, this evidence was then edited out of the BBC Madness in the Fast Lane documentary in 2010, so was also never known about by the millions or people who have watched this film. More importantly, the Hollinshead family never knew of this evidence, and as a direct result are now taking legal action against the police and UHNS.
Sabina was released from hospital only after 5hrs following this incident. It’s then alleged Sabina went on to meet Mr Hollinshead after a chance encounter in the street, and that she ended going back to his house and where it’s claimed she then stabbed and killed him.
Dr Kolar and Dr Kenneth Shorrock come from the ‘same stable’, so to speak; they come from the same office. Dr Shorrock is the same pathologist who incorrectly recorded in his report in July 2005 that Jean Charles de Menezes jumped over a barrier before “stumbling” down an escalator in the moments before police officers shot him. It was then proved this never happened. Shorrock said he was not sure who told him de Menezes had “vaulted” the barrier before he was shot.
The IPCC released three reports into Ian Tomlinson’s death, written between April 2010 and May 2011. The third report detailed an allegation from Tomlinson’s family that the police had offered misleading information to Dr Shorrock before the third autopsy report was written on the 22ndApril 2009. D.I Eddie Hall told Dr Shorrock, who was conducting the autopsy for the police; that Tomlinson had fallen to the ground in front of a police van earlier in the evening, though there was also no evidence to support this claim.
In September 2005; a GMC hearing, found that Dr Shorrock had been; ‘unprofessional, inconsistent, unreasonable and inappropriate’. He was reprimanded over his role in a botched trial, which cost taxpayers £5million, when he ‘changed his report’ into the cause of death of a pensioner who died during an operation and which led to her surgeon being ‘wrongly’ charged with manslaughter.
The above, and much more is claimed by the authors of the new book; A Madness Shared by Two, released on the 12-12-12. They state they believe Sabina is innocent of Glenn’s murder and that the Hollinshead family are calling on a new investigation to be held.
Contact: amadnesssharedbytwo@yahoo.com – More info: http://www.amadnesssharedbytwo.com