[Closed] PC Simon Harwood found not guilty

I take it htis guy was not the judge then?
http://www.****/news/article-1236918/Top-judge-targets-punch-manslaughter-cases-crackdown-yob-violence.html

The fact police officers haven't been convicted might possibly mean they haven't comitted a criminal offence.

It might also mean some of them know how to cover their own backs.

They may have been professionally negligent in certain circumstances.

Manslaughter by gross negligence is a crime too.

It was a rhetorical question.
I was trying to point out that your comment was redundant. If you intended to kill someone with your actions it was de facto the case that you knew the actions could lead to death as that is what you intend to do.

I was trying to point out that your comment was redundant

Has anyone read that famous book by Joseph Heller?

as far as I can tell, that's a pissed bloke shuffling along with his hands in his pockets trying to get somewhere, trying to avoid shit. Doesn't really deserve a brutal smackdown eh? let alone death. That cop has the air of a bully boy **** high on power. But obviously I don't know the "facts". Mind you, I remember pushing a lad to the ground in a proper slamdown sort of way like that vid when I was aged 9 cos he slapped my sister in the arse with some sticks. He really smashed his head. I got told off by the headmaster.

Completely disgraceful on all counts.

I struggle with long sentences. But to summarise.... anyone who disagrees with a police officers apparently god given right to lash out indiscriminately, even if that results in death, with complete impunity, is a namby-pamby, bleeding heart lefty, pinko, commy marxist? And probably a threat to society?

I don't mind anyway. 'Suspect leftie' affords the air of mystery to which I aspire.

Truly, an enigma wrapped in a mystery.

But to summarise.... anyone who disagrees with a police officers apparently god given right to lash out indiscriminately, even if that results in death, with complete impunity, is a namby-pamby, bleeding heart lefty, pinko, commy marxist? And probably a threat to society?

No, not really a fair summary imo. I think probably only Zulu-eleven would try to claim that and turn this into a right v left issue.

Although TBF andymc06 at one stage did also try that stroke.

I think probably only Zulu-eleven would try to claim that and turn this into a right v left issue.

Radio 4 summed this up very well this morning - and without descending into a "bleeding hearts" vs "hang em high" type debate...

1. "Character evidence" was reviewed by judge and not placed before jury, on risk of it being prejudicial. Apparently, because Harwood had admitted he knocked Tomlinson down. The implication was that if this hadn't been admitted, then the evidence of past complaints would have been admissable - as it showed a "propensity" towards that sort of behaviour.

2. UK has a very poor record of properly investigating and prosecuting Police Officers. Circa 1500 deaths in custody for one case where officers prosectued (in 1970...?) Prosecution only succeded because manslaughter was dropped for assualt. FFS

3. Legally, there is a connundrum. Harwood might have been found not guilty of manslaughter, but the inquest still decided on unlawfull killing
- so "not innocent" either...?

In the interest of devil's advocacy, wasn't he charged with something that would be more difficult to be found guilty of rather than a lesser charge that could have sullied the otherwise impeccable reputaion of the Police Force?

When I heard the verdict this song came right back...

So old, yet so true.

In the interest of devil's advocacy, wasn't he charged with something that would be more difficult to be found guilty of rather than a lesser charge that could have sullied the otherwise impeccable reputaion of the Police Force?

precisely, even harder to prove after the notched first autopsy.

still i'm sure the resident brown shirts will happily overlook that eh?

wow it all got going last night didn't it? the trouble is, by going on forums, we think we've dealt with it, spouted a few opinions, shot a few folk down, but nowts really changed, has it? the police have got away with it, status quo is upheld, lets all carry on, we've done our bit, till next time and we'll all get hot and bothered again.....

anyone who disagrees with a police officers apparently god given right to lash out indiscriminately, even if that results in death, with complete impunity, is a namby-pamby, bleeding heart lefty, pinko, commy marxist? And probably a threat to society?

not really - however anyone who thinks that a man who has been found [b]innocent[/b] of the charges by a jury of his peers, should still be punished, is applying the worst of double standards, because they want him to be afforded less protection from the law than any other citizen, on the basis that he is a police officer.

which is a pretty is a namby-pamby, bleeding heart lefty, pinko, commy marxist thing to do as it happens 😉

So:
1. Unlawful killing but no manslaughter
2. Scotland Yard restricted information
3. He should never have been re-employed by the Police
4. The poor victim was a "homeless acoholic" according to his reports and his family were doing what...

And who ends up carrying the can? What will be done to stop a repetition? Answers on the back of stamp...

Z-11
How do you get around the two contradictory verdicts though...?

Innocent of manslaughter, as you correctly state.

But, you choose to ignore this person's close involvement in an "unlawful killing". Both verdicts are correct in the eyes of the law.

RKK1

Doesn't it hinge on this?

On Thursday a friend of Harwood's claimed that evidence from a trauma specialist, Alastair Wilson, who raised the hypothesis that analysis of Tomlinson's blood indicated his internal bleeding could have started before the fall, had been crucial to the acquittal."It was a vital piece of evidence that wasn't heard at the inquest. He was never guilty of manslaughter. He may have been guilty of assault for the baton strike, but he didn't kill him."

Awful case whatever the "result".

You are simplifying here Z-11 as it has also been agreed the victim was unlawfully killed and we all know who unlawfully killed him so innocent is stretching it a bit and requires you to select your charge carefully.
As the death in custody and prosecution rates suggest some folk are suggesting his status as a police office affords him more protection and not less and what people wish for is equal treatment of all those charged including coppers. There seems to be near immunity.

Ps your human rights hat and unbridled humanitarianism really suits you

however anyone who thinks that a [s]man [/s] violent thug who has been found [s]innocent of the charges by a jury of his peers,[/s] to have unlawfully killed someone should still be punished, is [s]applying the worst of double standards,[/s] shocked at the blatant corruption because [s] they want him to be [/s] it was obvious he was afforded [s]less [/s] more protection from the law than any other citizen, on the basis that he is a police officer.

which is a pretty is a[s] namby-pamby, bleeding heart lefty, pinko, commy marxist[/s]normal thing to do as it happens

thats better

teamhurtmore

As someone professionally engaged in the forensic scientific analysis of situations where all evidence is circumstantial (ie, rare to get absolutely positive proof one way or another), I have a number of problems with your quote... (the clues are highlighted below 🙄

On Thursday a [b]friend of[/b] Harwood's [b][u]claimed[/u][/b] that evidence from a trauma specialist, Alastair Wilson, who [b]raised the hypothesis[/b] that analysis of Tomlinson's blood [b]indicated[/b] his internal bleeding [b]could[/b] have started before the fall, had been crucial to the acquittal."It was a vital piece of evidence that wasn't heard at the inquest. He was never guilty of manslaughter. He may have been guilty of assault for the baton strike, but he didn't kill him."

Each of the words in bold (except friend 😉 ) are used by scientists where there is a lack of proof...

can he be tried for assault now or do you have to pick one at the start and stick with that?

can he be tried for assault now or do you have to pick one at the start and stick with that?

He could be tried for manslaughter again if the CPS fancied it. And again, and again, and again until they can find 12 people who can deliver the right result.

A bit like an EU referendum 😉

I was wondering that, the police and the CPS are so close that it was unlikely that there will be any interest. I suspect a civil case will be brought.

It would be nice to feel the police are judged to at least the same standard as the public if not a higher one. They are offered a seeming immunity from criminal proceedings and when they are prosecuted the numbers of convictions?

The IPCC comment on police prosecutions?

"We have a jury system that is as good as anything in the world, but it is clear that juries quite often find it difficult to convict police officers."

rkk01 - just to be clear those are not my words, merely a quote for quickest newspaper I could find. But isn't the case resting on the question of proving without reasonable doubt that it was the incident that caused his death rather than something else. Hence the discomfort that people find between balancing the disgust at the behaviour/desire for justice and avoiding a lynch mob mentality and ensuring the rule of law.

So, its this "lack of proof" bit that makes us all uncomfortable.

So, its this "lack of proof" bit that makes us all uncomfortable

No I don't think so.

Doesn't the discomfort comes from the failure to behave in the manner expected of a person in a role of responsibility??

And the seeming sense of immunity of the Police / impotence of victims. Doesn't sit comfotably with British sense of justice.

If Joe Public hit a person / pushed them over, then I suspect that exactly the same quality of evidence might result in a conviction.

If Joe Public hit a person / pushed them over, then I suspect that exactly the same quality of evidence might result in a conviction.

make NO mistake, were a member of the public filmed pushing someone to the ground in a similar manner, they WOULD be convicted. Perhaps not of mansluaghter but at the very least of assault.

Wrong charge deliberately brought. Bedtime for democracy. night night.

rkk01 - Member
Doesn't the discomfort comes from the failure to behave in the manner expected of a person in a role of responsibility??

For sure, but that is not really being debated is it? He is guilty of behaving in an appalling manner. But that is not what the court had to decide. Of course, your final question really hits the nail on the head.

He could be tried for manslaughter again if the CPS fancied it. And again, and again, and again until they can find 12 people who can deliver the right result.

Res Judicata?

Okay I have tried not to comment on this thread but the outcome really pissed me off ...

Justice in UK is so lame I think the law has been turned up side down.

If the law is no longer able to distinguished the wrongs from the rights then I guess the best way to describe this country is a country heading for sunset.

One of the major stumbling blocks to justice in this country is the flawed jury system. 12 people, perhaps of below average intelligence, perhaps with low educational standards, perhaps not endowed with critical thinking skills or common sense, perhaps not wanting to be there, getting to decide the outcome. Having to ignore comments that have been made but deemed inadmissable.

Perhaps we should introduce a volunteer system, where those volunteers have passed a basic comprehension and IQ test?

The best example of a case that would have benefitted from this are the trial/s of Siôn Jenkins for the murder of his step-daughter.

One of the major stumbling blocks to justice in this country is the flawed jury system. 12 people, perhaps of below average intelligence, perhaps with low educational standards, perhaps not endowed with critical thinking skills or common sense, perhaps not wanting to be there, getting to decide the outcome. Having to ignore comments that have been made but deemed inadmissable.

Perhaps we should introduce a volunteer system, where those volunteers have passed a basic comprehension and IQ test?

The best example of a case that would have benefitted from this are the trial/s of Siôn Jenkins for the murder of his step-daughter.

Judges are ofen best placed to "see" the issues more clearly (although certainly not all, I was once booted out of a Sherrif's court for "breathing his air"). The problem is, judges are appointed.

It doesn't sit well with a modern democracy to have appointed judges deciding such matters (apparently).

I've been involved in a few civil matters where IMO the judges have gone too far and the judgment has smacked of judicial muscle flexing.

I agree that having 12 potential numpties being played by counsel and confused by an often complex procedure if not ideal. But i'm not sure what the alternative is, particularly for the more serious end of the criminal scale.

But the Jury don't get to decide the outcome. They are a key part of the process, but are obviously only the jury part of 'judge judy and executioner' 😉

Sorry, do we [b]really[/b] think this is the first person to be responsible for the death of someone to have been found not guilty by a Jury?

Let alone the number of clearly guilty men who have been freed in the interests of justice on the basis of unsafe evidence or prejudicial comments or actions by people involved in the case, the courts, or the press.

Every day, up and down the land, guilty people walk free form court because thats what [i]justice[/i] demands. "Miscarriages of justice" don't just happen in one direction.

Why no outcry before? [b]Why the sudden outcry now?[/b] ask yourself that!

Double Standards!

Why no outcry before? Why the sudden outcry now? ask yourself that!

If you open your eyes you'll find right-minded people complaining about a whole host of cases that seem to have come to an inappropriate and unjust end.

Why have to chosen to complain about just this one? Why now?

I still think you have to go back to the original autopsy, and look at what was discovered in that.
The fluid found in the abdomen wasnt blood.
There was never a proper follow up autopsy done on the body, just a review of the notes. - yes they disagreed with the original conclusion, but they didnt examine the body.

I certainly think the officer is guilty of assault, but dont think it was manslaughter. (which seems to be the view of the jury)

There are a lot of people commenting on this thread with apparent authority who really don't understand legal process or what has actually happened with the case. "The Police" haven't gotten away with anything. There was no cover up. It was investigated by a completely independent body and the decision to charge was made by another completely independent body. Other police officers present at the time gave evidence against him. I agree what he did was abhorrent, but he didn't kill the bloke on purpose and apparently had no clue as to his pre-existing medical condition. The major screw up was by a Home Office pathologist who has since been booted out. But how is that "The Polices" fault? Bit of common sense and perspective wouldn't go amiss on this forum now and again. He couldn't be charged with common assault because there is a 6 month statutory limit on prosecution for summary offences. That was an IPCC and CPS decision. He was charged with manslaughter, bit you have to prove a direct causal link between his actions and the death of the victim. The Jury either felt this didn't happen or that he used reasonable force in the middle of a public order situation.

Bit of common sense and perspective wouldn't go amiss on this forum now and again.

Lollercoaster!!!! 😆

Bit of common sense and perspective wouldn't go amiss on this forum now and again.

😆

While the G20 protests ferment, seethe and foam
On the pavements surrounding St Paul's famous dome,
A paperman struggles in vain to get home,
But at every turn he meets hindrance and let,
He is kettled and blocked by the lines of the Met.

When he crossed the police as they went on their beat
He was struck with a baton and knocked from his feet,
Then they left him to die like a dog in the street.
They weren't sorry then and they're not sorry yet,
Those cold-hearted bastards who work for the Met.

Their PR department were anxious to pin
The blame on protestors, with negative spin,
‘Til footage of Harwood’s assault trickled in,
Which sunk their excuses and quickly upset
The tower of lies that was built by the Met.

Then the people could see that that conduct was vile,
There was uproar and outrage, so after a while
They charged that policeman and put him on trial.
We all felt relief, as it seemed that the net
Had finally closed on that thug from the Met.

Though his barbarous acts he freely admitted,
He claimed that that level of force was permitted,
That he'd not meant to hurt, and the jury acquitted,
Believing his lies and his ersatz regret.
They blindly accepted the word of the Met.

But, unlike the jury's, our thinking’s not woolly,
We've seen through his lies and we understand fully
That when he's in a uniform a bully's still a bully,
And we won't let this lie and we'll never forget
That there's blood on the hands of the men of the Met.

So tell those who'll listen, at every opportunity,
That the people we trust to protect our community
Are free to assault and to kill with impunity,
That the cops we deserve are the ones that we'll get
If we tolerate murdering thugs in the Met

If we tolerate murdering thugs in the Met

see, thats the type of bullshit that undermines your whole argument. Emotive and inappropiate use of words like [i]murder[/i] shows that people are not thinking or analysing rationally.

If you open your eyes you'll find right-minded people complaining about a whole host of cases that seem to have come to an inappropriate and unjust end.

really? which ones? I mean I don't see any sort of serious campaign calling for Colin Duffy to be brought to justice or anything!

he didn't kill the bloke on purpose and apparently had no clue as to his pre-existing medical condition.