Tomlinson Hearing

[WaltonRed]

Not guilty

 

suprise fucking suprise

[Yozzer]

Simon Harwood not guilty of killing Ian Tomlinson | UK news | guardian.co.uk

 

 

A policeman has been acquitted of killing Ian Tomlinson during G20 protests in London by striking the 47-year-old bystander with a baton and pushing him to the ground as he walked away from police lines.

 

The jury at Southwark crown court on Thursday cleared PC Simon Harwood, 45, a member of the Metropolitan police's elite public order unit, the Territorial Support Group, of manslaughter following one of the most high-profile cases of alleged police misconduct in recent years.

 

Harwood told the court that while in retrospect he "got it wrong" in seeing Tomlinson as a potentially threatening obstruction as police cleared a pedestrian passageway in the City on the evening of 1 April 2009, his actions were justifiable within the context of the widespread disorder of that day.

 

Speaking outside the court, the Tomlinson family said: "It's not the end, we are not giving up for justice for Ian." They said they would now pursue a civil case.

 

The jury's verdict, after four days of deliberations, brings about something of a legal contradiction: 14 months ago another jury, at the inquest into Tomlinson's death, ruled that he was unlawfully killed by Harwood. The inquest ruling was made on the same burden of proof as a criminal trial, that is, beyond reasonable doubt.

 

Neither jury heard details of Harwood's prior disciplinary record, which can only be reported now. This includes how he quit the Met on health grounds in 2001 shortly before a planned disciplinary hearing into claims he illegally tried to arrest a driver after a road rage incident while off duty, altering his notes to retrospectively justify the actions. Harwood was nonetheless able to join another force, Surrey, before returning to serve with the Met in 2005.

 

He allegedly punched, throttled, kneed or threatened other suspects while in uniform in other alleged incidents.

 

The verdict will come as a huge disappointment to Tomlinson's family, following a saga that began when the father of four, who was stepfather to his wife's five other children, collapsed as he tried to make his way home through police lines. It followed a day of protests connected to the meeting in London of leaders from the G20 group of nations. He died shortly afterwards.

 

Tomlinson had been an alcoholic for some years and was living in a homeless hostel. It was initially presumed he died from natural causes, a conclusion supported by an initial postmortem examination, which gave the cause as heart failure.

 

But six days later the Guardian published video footage, shot by an American in London on business, which showed a policeman in riot gear striking Tomlinson on the leg with a baton before shoving him violently to the pavement, minutes before his final collapse.

 

Three pathologists involved in two further postmortem examinations said Tomlinson instead died from internal bleeding associated with his liver and consistent with being pushed to the ground. While the officer was soon identified as Harwood, prosecutors initially decided against charging him, changing their mind only after the inquest verdict.

 

The trial hinged on two key questions: firstly, whether Harwood's actions amounted to a criminal assault; then, whether they directly led to Tomlinson's death.

 

The first issue was simple, the prosecution argued: Harwood carried out "a gratuitous act of aggression", Mark Dennis QC told the jury. Harwood had recklessly abandoned the police van he was designated to drive to arrest a man seen writing graffiti on another vehicle. Humiliated when the man wriggled free, he opted to join a line of other officers clearing a pedestrian passageway by the Royal Exchange complex.

 

But in his evidence Harwood said he had been separated from his van by a threatening crowd before following orders to clear the passage. He insisted his actions towards Tomlinson were correct at the time, a version of events supported by two other officers at the scene called as defence witnesses.

 

The issue of cause of death saw the testimony of the first pathologist, Dr Freddy Patel, who reasserted his belief that Tomlinson died from heart failure, placed against that of Dr Nat Cary, who told the court that even a relatively small amount of internal bleeding would have caused death. The jury was not told that Patel has twice been suspended by medical authorities for mistakes in other postmortem examinations and is no longer on the Home Office's register of approved pathologists.

 

No police officer has been convicted for manslaughter for a crime committed while on duty since 1986.

[Elmyn Noos]

I've lost count of the number of times I've wanted to baton some fucker who's walking slowly in front of me when I'm trying to get somewhere. Tomlinson had it coming the dawdling bastard.

[Whelan]

10 previous complaints, which were not admissible!

[WaltonRed]

and the powers that be wonder why people hate the police

 

Once the weather brightens up I can see a repeat of last year happening again

[Stu Monty]

It looks proper, proper suspect.

 

Not a surprise though. If you trust the justice system to police the police then you're a fucking mug.

[Elmyn Noos]

It looks proper, proper suspect.

 

Not a surprise though. If you trust the justice system to police the police then you're a fucking mug.

 

He wasn't tried through a justice system, he was tried through a legal system.

[Charles Penrose]

You do realise complaints are pretty common right? I'm sure if I was ever accused of being a racist the prosecution would want to disclose the fact I was accused by some crazy old bat of condemning the 'scroungers, retards and blacks' in Society just a few short months ago.

 

Ten complaints, for the amount of time he has been in, is pretty low. It's being talked about as if that is a horrendous disciplinary record when it just isn't. It'll be pretty standard. Many complaints we receive are spurious.

 

He hasn't been found guilty of manslaughter because it can't be proved what the he did was the cause of death. Surely that's the right decision? I can't condone what I've seen him do on video as it seems a response way out of proportion to the problem Tomlinson was causing. He's probably guilty of an assault, and I say probably because there is at least some context here. He was in the middle of a riot and that has to be considered if not an excuse.

 

Still, the whinging twat that is Walton Red loves the chance of a good moan where the Police are concerned.

[firemarshall]

You do realise complaints are pretty common right? I'm sure if I was ever accused of being a racist the prosecution would want to disclose the fact I was accused by some crazy old bat of condemning the 'scroungers, retards and blacks' in Society just a few short months ago.

 

Ten complaints, for the amount of time he has been in, is pretty low. It's being talked about as if that is a horrendous disciplinary record when it just isn't. It'll be pretty standard. Many complaints we receive are spurious.

 

He hasn't been found guilty of manslaughter because it can't be proved what the he did was the cause of death. Surely that's the right decision? I can't condone what I've seen him do on video as it seems a response way out of proportion to the problem Tomlinson was causing. He's probably guilty of an assault, and I say probably because there is at least some context here. He was in the middle of a riot and that has to be considered if not an excuse.

 

Still, the whinging twat that is Walton Red loves the chance of a good moan where the Police are concerned.

 

The whinging twat that is WaltonRed is absolutely correct though.

[Paulie Dangerously]

Found not guilty by a jury randomly picked UK citizens who saw the evidence which related specifically to this incident. Good enough for me

[WaltonRed]

Fuck off, Charles, this is nothing to do with me being a whinging twat

 

I actually have a lot of time for the Police, i've defended them time and time again over the years but this stinks

 

I dont expect you to think otherwise though, got to protect your own havent you which is fair enough I suppose

[WaltonRed]

plus it wasnt in the riots, it was a demo wasnt it?

[WaltonRed]

G20 demo's nothing to do with the riots Charles, just checked

[RedBrian84]

Simon Harwood not guilty of killing Ian Tomlinson | UK news | guardian.co.uk

 

Firstly, just want to be a little pedantic and point out that he was only being tried for this particular offence, not his previous offences. That is how the system is supposed to work - anything revealed about the defendent beforehand can influence the jury.

 

I was on a murder trial in my jury service a while back and the defendent got not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter. I was appalled when I heard his previous crimes (some of them vicious as fuck) as they were read out after the jury returned its verdict, and a tiny bit of me, for a split second, resented the decision we'd made. But then again, he wasn't on trial for those previous crimes, the same as this dickhead copper.

 

But the jury have made their minds up, as unfortunate as it may be from us on the outside of it all.

[Charles Penrose]

It's fuck all about sticking up for my own, I fucking hate many of my own. Some are twats. This is about the fact you disregard a Jury who have seen fit not to find him guilty because of a few articles you have read and a video you've watched which has no context. You'd be content to hang the man based on a small percentage of the evidence available.

 

He'll go through disciplinary proceedings and lose his job, and probably rightly so. He'll get sued civilly and lose much more. But just because you didn't get the verdict you wanted it doesn't mean it was due to 'corruption' or whatever other fairy story. It would seem that the overriding reason for this is the failure of the prosecution to prove that the man's death was a direct result of his actions.

 

Just to clarify, I didn't mean the 'riots' as in last summer, I used the term in a general disorder context. I'm more than willing to admit that had it been a member of my own family I'd be fucking livid.

Edited July 19, 2012 by Charles Penrose

[torahboy]

It's fuck all about sticking up for my own, I fucking hate many of my own. Some are twats. This is about the fact you disregard a Jury who have seen fit not to find him guilty because of a few articles you have read and a video you've watched which has no context. You'd be content to hang the man based on a small percentage of the evidence available.

 

He'll go through disciplinary proceedings and lose his job, and probably rightly so. He'll get sued civilly and lose much more. But just because you didn't get the verdict you wanted it doesn't mean it was due to 'corruption' or whatever other fairy story. It would seem that the overriding reason for this is the failure of the prosecution to prove that the man's death was a direct result of his actions.

 

Just to clarify, I didn't mean the 'riots' as in last summer, I used the term in a general disorder context. I'm more than willing to admit that had it been a member of my own family I'd be fucking livid.

 

 

 

He won't lose as much as Ian Tomlinson, more's the fucking pity. Regardless of the jury's inability to arrive at a verdict that would hold this piece of cowardly shit responsible for contributing to Mr Tomlinson's death, the overwhelming public opinion will be that Harwood has escaped justice.

 

Mr Tomlinson's family should hound this cunt for the rest of his, hopefully, wretched and miserable life.

[lifetime fan]

He'll go through disciplinary proceedings and lose his job, and probably rightly so. He'll get sued civilly and lose much more. But just because you didn't get the verdict you wanted it doesn't mean it was due to 'corruption' or whatever other fairy story. It would seem that the overriding reason for this is the failure of the prosecution to prove that the man's death was a direct result of his actions.

 

 

That's alright then.

[Stu Monty]

This is about the fact you disregard a Jury who have seen fit not to find him guilty...

 

Just like when the other jury said he'd unlawfully killed him you mean?

 

"Three pathologists involved in two further postmortem examinations said Tomlinson instead died from internal bleeding associated with his liver and consistent with being pushed to the ground".

 

He got slammed into the deck and then died pretty much straight after. If you've got a problem with people never believeing the police then you need to question why that is.

 

I presume that the officers who watched it happen and declined to report it will also be losing their jobs? Nah, course not. Ranks closed. It's human nature, it happens in other jobs but the problem here is that the police isn't another job, it's upholding the law. When some massive cowarldy shithouse launches a drunk into the pavement you should act on it, regardless of the fact that he's wearing the same uniform as you.

[Anubis]

I've no love of the police but I trust the jury system and beyond reasonable doubt is a strict verdict. Very difficult to get home on when there was conflicting evidence about the bleed. They'd have got home on a lesser assault charge - probably up to ABH.

 

People confuse not guilty verdicts with innocence. A jury may not believe that he used reasonable force, but that doesn't mean that they can conclude beyond reasonable doubt that the force used caused the bleed.

 

From the tone of the Met interview I think they'll certainly fuck him off as soon as possible. It will be taking the loss if he keeps his pension because he's clearly a thug with a warrant card. Hopefully he's destitute after the civil case as well.

 

I think at some point he'll be back in a criminal court as he clearly likes using his fists and has no self-control.

[WaltonRed]

The coronor said unlawful killing, the jury have got it wrong

[RedBrian84]

I've no love of the police but I trust the jury system and beyond reasonable doubt is a strict verdict. Very difficult to get home on when there was conflicting evidence about the bleed. They'd have got home on a lesser assault charge - probably up to ABH.

 

People confuse not guilty verdicts with innocence. A jury may not believe that he used reasonable force, but that doesn't mean that they can conclude beyond reasonable doubt that the force used caused the bleed.

 

From the tone of the Met interview I think they'll certainly fuck him off as soon as possible. It will be taking the loss if he keeps his pension because he's clearly a thug with a warrant card. Hopefully he's destitute after the civil case as well.

 

I think at some point he'll be back in a criminal court as he clearly likes using his fists and has no self-control.

 

 

Agree with this.

[WaltonRed]

We know more than most what it feels like to be done over

 

Losing his job and him being pursued in the civil courts isnt enough

[Charles Penrose]

Let's not pretend I'm on some great crusade to defend the Police here. I'm acutely aware that a not guilty verdict does not mean innocence, or even that a guilty verdict confirms certain guilt. I've seen the two blokes that murdered my uncle sent to prison for life, and conversely seen the lady who killed my mother by way of her shoddy driving escape without punishment. With that in mind, and given that I've spent nine years investigating crime and presenting evidence to the Courts, I'm at least as well placed and probably better placed than most to comment on the effectiveness of the legal system.

 

Fucking hell, even I think the Officer is guilty based on the evidence I've seen, but then again I wasn't privy to everything that twelve men and women were. The funny thing is that, at least statistically, the chances are that even the people on here crying foul play would have returned a verdict of not guilty yesterday afternoon. Even I would have gone into that Courtroom believing a man's death had been caused by the reckless, unlawful actions of a Police Officer. Who could honestly say they would have entered that Court room with no pre-conceived notions of guilt. I could just see Walton Red and Monty rubbing their hands maniacally at the thought of sending a man to prison regardless of what evidence is presented. Dispute it all you like, but the very fact you're on here lambasting the verdict based on the snapshot of the incident you had pre-trial only supports the accusation.

[Charles Penrose]

Walton, you know fuck all about what it is like to be done over if you're referring to what I think you are. Don't bring Hillsborough into a debate to suit your argument as it's a fucking shit thing to be doing.

[WaltonRed]

Rubbing my hands?

 

Come on mate, this isnt some lefty crusade vs the police

 

and i'm bringing it in to because its relevent, the police doing something wrong and yet again getting away with it.

 

we'll leave it there