PC Simon Harwood found not guilty

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 really 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 justice demands. “Miscarriages of justice” don’t just happen in one direction.

Why no outcry before? Why the sudden outcry now? 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 murder 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.

he did not kill him at all even though he was unlawfully killed …aint justice great

see, thats the type of bullshit that undermines your whole argument

what argument..? I’ve got no argument with anyone.. I’ve just published a poem that I saw earlier..

Emotive and inappropiate use of words like murder shows that people are not thinking or analysing rationally.

The unlawful killing of an innocent man is an emotive subject..

The unlawful killing of an innocent man is an emotive subject..

So is the sanctity of trial by jury, and the acceptance and respect of the decision made by that jury – if you don’t understand why, I’d suggest you read up on a case known as ‘Bushell’s Case’ or google ‘Penn and Mead’…

If Not Guilty be not a verdict, then you make of the jury and Magna Charta but a mere nose of wax.

if you don’t understand why, I’d suggest you read up on a case known as ‘Bushell’s Case’

you’re peeing into the wind sonny Jim, your suggestions fall on deaf ears, as not one monkey could I give..

I fully understand that some people are happy to do as the bossman says without question.. and I also understand that some would rather not bend over and take one up the juxtaposition quite so obediently..

I’m happy these days to observe from the sidelines and leave the big decisions to fate, as humankind doesn’t really seem responsible enough to make the big calls at the moment..

Because you’re much bettererer and more clevererer than the rest of humanity. Stupid humans.

why thank you.. I thought it was cos I’m lazy

So is the sanctity of trial by jury, and the acceptance and respect of the decision made by that jury

could you explain miscarriages of justice to me whilst maintain and accepting the sanctity of this process…it is a process and it is not a certainty it leads to the truth or a just decision.
Perhaps you could explain why you are valuing this juries verdict over the Inquest juries verdict of unlawful killing ?
Which is “best” is it just the one you agree with?
We seem to have juries contradicting each other

could you explain miscarriages of justice to me whilst maintain and accepting the sanctity of this process…it is a process and it is not a certainty it leads to the truth or a just decision

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2001/oct/14/jurytrials.humanrights

Did you even read your link?
it was about perverse judgements – that is when juries find ” guilty people” innocent…are you suggesting that this has happened here?

It adds nothing to your argument nor answers the question re miscarriages or conflict between juries and the sanctity of trial by jury …which was what i asked you.
FFS you cannot even google well 🙄
I shall leave this as , frankly, you are not as bright as you think/wish you were and this is futile

that is when juries find ” guilty people” innocent

erm, isn’t that exactly what you’re complaining happened here 🙄

You don’t know the motives of the jury, or why they found him innocent – because jury deliberations are secret, so you can’t say in any case why someone who was ‘clearly guilty’ (as so many of ‘the usuals’ contend Harwood was) has been cleared.

erm, isn’t that exactly what you’re complaining happened here

Did i mention perverse decision before you….have a hard think about that one and see if you can work out whether I think this has occurred here or not 🙄
As you are well aware [ unless you did not read your own link] the perverse decision is where a jury choose to not apply the law – ie they know the person did the crime but they refuse to convict them

you can’t say in any case why someone who was ‘clearly guilty’ (as so many of ‘the usuals’ contend Harwood was) has been cleared

then you would not have been able to post a link citing cases where they have done this 🙄 FFS you silly fool ..desperate and amusing.
What has happened to you of late it was never this easy…has someone taken your log in details over?

welcome to the U K of A. how dare he walk past the riot police with his hands in his pockets.

Zulu-Eleven – Member

because jury deliberations are secret, so you can’t say in any case why someone who was ‘clearly guilty’ (as so many of ‘the usuals’ contend Harwood was) has been cleared.

Who exactly are these “usuals” that you speak of Zulu-Eleven ?

Explain yourself ……. is chewkw one of them ?

Because he is clearly appalled by the outcome of this case, as shown here :

chewkw – Member

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.

You try to portray this as an argument of right verses left, and yet it so clearly isn’t. No one on this forum could less be described as a bleeding heart leftie than chewkw, he makes even Genghis Khan seem positively liberal. And yet clearly in his opinion justice has not been served with regards to this tragic case.

This has nothing to do with left or right. But you attempt to use as a refuge because you are so bankrupt of intellectual argument.