259 replies to this topic

[recovery man]

A police officer accused of killing newspaper seller Ian Tomlinson during the G20 protests in London in 2009 is to stand trial at the Old Bailey.

Scotland Yard Pc Simon Harwood appeared at City of Westminster Magistrates' Court charged with manslaughter. He was bailed until 17 October.

An inquest jury previously found Mr Tomlinson had been unlawfully killed.

The 47-year-old collapsed and died after being hit by a baton and pushed to the ground on 1 April 2009.

Mr Tomlinson's widow, Julia, was in the public gallery of the court for the two-minute hearing on Monday.

Pc Harwood, 44, of Carshalton, south London, spoke only to confirm his name, age and address. Wearing a black suit and grey tie, he had his right arm in a sling.

Director of Public Prosecutions Keir Starmer decided to charge Pc Harwood after the conclusion of the inquest into Mr Tomlinson's death.

The Crown Prosecution Service had previously decided against bringing a prosecution.

But, following the inquest, Mr Starmer said: "The difficulties that would now confront any prosecution have changed in nature and scale from last year when a decision was taken not to prosecute, although it is clear that real difficulties remain."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13839795 lets hope he has a fair trial and not by the news papers.

[MerseyLLB]

Almost zero likelihood of a fair trial. Freedom of the press is not always a good thing.

[recovery man]

Almost zero likelihood of a fair trial. Freedom of the press is not always a good thing.

Agreed +1

[callsign-kid]

Almost zero likelihood of a fair trial. Freedom of the press is not always a good thing.

Unfortunately you're right. There is no way he can have a fair trial. Everyone has access to the media and the media have all put a very negative slant on the entire episode (rightly or wrongly). The mind of at least one juror must be slanted. However it is more likely that all jurors have seen this.

[CmdKeen]

The problem as well is that after the initial decision not to charge him many commentators operated under the impression that they didn't need to worry about prejudicing a trial any more and so went even further than usual in their denunciations and accusations.

[adslegend]

Almost zero likelihood of a fair trial. Freedom of the press is not always a good thing.

And therefore almost zero chance of a conviction.

[Smeders]

Almost zero likelihood of a fair trial. Freedom of the press is not always a good thing.

Press will put their spin on it whatever the outcome is. Like you said its not always a good thing.

[gordon]

But if the press hadn't been free to report what they saw we'd still be thinking he fell over and/or was hit by bottles thrown by the crowd, so freedom of the press also has meant the truth has come out.

Fair trial or not will be for the judge/courts to decide.

It will also be a chance for Harwood to actually try and justify his actions instead of claiming that Tomlinson wasn't walking away when he hit him, or that he was a threat.

[SkinSte]

But if the press hadn't been free to report what they saw we'd still be thinking he fell over and/or was hit by bottles thrown by the crowd, so freedom of the press also has meant the truth has come out.

Fair trial or not will be for the judge/courts to decide.

It will also be a chance for Harwood to actually try and justify his actions instead of claiming that Tomlinson wasn't walking away when he hit him, or that he was a threat.

And this is why it is nigh on impossible for him to receive a fair trial.

[MerseyLLB]

If the press received the video, pass it to police. Then run a neutral story until after any trial.

[rolex-oyster]

I feel that he will be aquitted of manslaughter which has to be beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law.Manslaughter is an extremely difficult offence to get home especially when all the evidence is taken into account.Such as the previous post mortem which were favourable and not entirely discredited and CPS decision not to charge.

However such a charge is a strong headline and message to the public that police brutality won't be tolerated.The video shows this the public are not really that interested in any other side of it.They believe what they see and are told by the media.
The not guilty verdict will make little impact later on.

However as evidenced by the way the custody sergeant was treat last year this guy will face the sack because the onus of proof is the balance of probability not reasonable doubt with pro standards.

The ethos is if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it is a duck!
Which basically means we will go with the obvious the cctv, a man is dead after being hit by a cop and the cops previous conduct record.

Bye bye!

[crunchybits]

Press will put their spin on it whatever the outcome is. Like you said its not always a good thing.

On the contrary I think you will find that juries even in high profile trials are quite capable of ignoring the press coverage of a particular case and arriving at a reasoned outcome. There has been a study of jury trials and they seem to arrive a fair outcome with their deliberations resulting in a verdict 99% of the time. Have a look at the research http://webarchive.na...r-research.pdf. The findings may well surprise you.

And if you look at the press activity in this country whilst sometimes it may border on the distasteful <depends on your perspective> I would rather have a free and highly critical press than a controlled system. "One of the fundamental concepts of democracy is that of self-government by the people. For such a system to work an informed electorate is necessary. In order to be appropriately knowledgeable, there must be no constraints on the free flow of information and ideas" http://en.wikipedia....eedom_of_speech

I feel every sympathy for the loss suffered by this family. Ultimately as police officers we are expected to be accountable and able to justify our actions to a Court of Law.

[Rorschach]

I too am glad of the comparative freedom of the press. However, I don't believe they should be allowed to comment on details of any court case until it is finished, beyond calls for witnesses and warning when a suspect is at large.
I don't see how it is in the public interest and it can destroy cases and lives.
The fact that the media can name defendants before the trial highly frustrates me.
"Man "rapes schoolgirls"! Here's a photo of him looking scary! Look at him! This is the village he lives in."
Even if the jury is intelligent enough to ignore the sensationalist reporting, people will remember that headline, not the short article on page 20 mentioning how he was found innocent at a later date.

Cracking down on that sort of thing would be a totally reasonable form of censorship in my eyes.

[foxtrot2008]

Almost zero likelihood of a fair trial. Freedom of the press is not always a good thing.

It's a shame you have so little faith in your peers. His actions are fundamentally indefensible, the only question is did it amount to manslaughter.

[Onlyme2008]

This should of been done in the first place, instead of which, fibble attemps to try and make it go away.

[MerseyLLB]

It's a shame you have so little faith in your peers. His actions are fundamentally indefensible, the only question is did it amount to manslaughter.

I, at a tender young age, learnt to expect the worst from the general public.
I am not defending his actions. I am saying there is no chance he can have a fair trial, whatsoever. If in a normal case it is prejudicial to put the fact a defendant has a PNC ID in a statement, how can you not see that what has preceded this trial WILL have an effect on any juries verdict.

[samt]

I feel that he will be aquitted of manslaughter which has to be beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law.Manslaughter is an extremely difficult offence to get home especially when all the evidence is taken into account.Such as the previous post mortem which were favourable and not entirely discredited and CPS decision not to charge.

However as evidenced by the way the custody sergeant was treat last year this guy will face the sack because the onus of proof is the balance of probability not reasonable doubt with pro standards.

The ethos is if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it is a duck!
Which basically means we will go with the obvious the cctv, a man is dead after being hit by a cop and the cops previous conduct record.

Bye bye!

Do you appreciate how easy it is to convict of manslaughter?! It's not an "extremely difficult offence", in fact it's often argued that it's too expansive and easy to prove. Essentially it's accidental and unlawful death, consider the term unlawful.


What is evidenced by the custody sergeant?

There have been plenty of police officers before who haven't been sacked and for worst offences, I don't think that you're fully aware of the disciplinary process.

[Giraffe]

It's a shame you have so little faith in your peers. His actions are fundamentally indefensible, the only question is did it amount to manslaughter.

It's ok - even if they in the jury (by chance) weren't aware of the details of this case, they can discuss it to their hearts content on Facebook afterwards.

I've never been on a jury, but from those I have spoken to who have there are good grounds for some sort of IQ test or similar before deciding who should sit on a jury.

[SkinSte]

Maybe you should have to have a degree to do jury service?

[mikeb21]

The whole thing has been a farcical. First the Met said officers had no contact with Tomlinson prior to his death, then the video came out forcing the Met to retract their statement, then there was a botched autopsy, Harwood wasn't going to face charges, there was an inquiry, now two years later he is facing charges... Total mess. Hardly swift and fair justice.

[richr]

Manslaughter is an extremely difficult offence to get home especially when all the evidence is taken into account.

Interesting piece on manslaughter -

One of the criticisms the writer and others have of the current law is that it makes it too easy for a person to be convicted of manslaughter, essentially because the law pitches the minimum level of culpability too low. A typical example of this is what's often called a one-punch manslaughter. A punches B once in the face. B stumbles over a crease in the carpet on which he was standing, hits his head against the wall, fracturing his skull and he dies. A is guilty of manslaughter by an unlawful and dangerous act. Such cases are not unduly rare – the writer has just completed a survey of 127 manslaughter cases since 1995 and there were at least two cases where the only violence consisted of a single punch, (as well as a small group of other cases where the fatal assault was a punch to the head or face). Whilst there's no doubt that A should not have punched B in the face, B's death was extremely unlikely - no-one would expect B to suffer anything more than a bruise or slight cut. No serious injury is foreseeable, let alone death. The element of luck is so great that many criminal lawyers are unhappy about holding A criminally liable and punishing him for killing B. A does not deserve to be treated as a manslayer.

The problem with manslaughter (in this layman's view) is that it's used for too wider range of incidents- there needs to be some offence of causing 'death by assault' which recognises that the intention of the assailant wasn't to kill, but also recognises that it was an assault that had very serious consequences.


If the evidence in the coroner's inquest is accurate, then it's clear that PC Harwood didn't set out to kill, but it is equally clear that is actions were not defensible. The charge should reflect an assault with tragic consequences rather than manslaughter clearly without intent.

[rolex-oyster]

Do you appreciate how easy it is to convict of manslaughter?! It's not an "extremely difficult offence", in fact it's often argued that it's too expansive and easy to prove. Essentially it's accidental and unlawful death, consider the term unlawful.


What is evidenced by the custody sergeant?

There have been plenty of police officers before who haven't been sacked and for worst offences, I don't think that you're fully aware of the disciplinary process.

I wonder how many cases this and the latest poster have got through crown court?
I have had about 25 go to full crown court trial as officer in the case between 1988 - 2005.At least 3 were section 18s one of which was watered down from an attempt murder.The macho image at the time was that as OIC you did everything yourself other than the forensics and typing up.getting everything through the process sergeant then CPS and then home with a jury is no mean feat.
A manslaughter would be investigated as if it were a murder by HMET a seperate unit ( big time CID).
The facts stand that a court will require reasonable doubt and any later internal discipline would be the balance of probabilties.hence the relevence of the custody officer case last year.Where he was cleared at court on appeal of assaulting a female which was on CCTV but eventually lost his job and pension through internal investigations which were to the onus of proof of the balance of probability all be it with some subtle changes in what he was accused of in comparison to the court charges.

[BestUserName]

Fair trial or not, the fact remains that Mr Tomlinson WAS unlawfully killed by PC Harwood. This has been decided by an inquest jury.

[adslegend]

Fair trial or not, the fact remains that Mr Tomlinson WAS unlawfully killed by PC Harwood. This has been decided by an inquest jury.

It is not the job of an inquest to apportion blame, and they did not decide that he was unlawfully killed by PC Harwood, just that he was unlawfully killed.

It is just a consequence of the circumstances of the incident that it is incredibly unlikely than anything other than PC Harwood's actions were responsible for his death.

[Rorschach]

Maybe you should have to have a degree to do jury service?

Oh you!