Ian Tomlinson CPS verdict: "no realistic prospect of conviction"

[detective-boy]

this hasn;t got anythung to do with the law.

This sort of hysterical statement is why no-one takes you seriously. It is everything about the law. What you believe the officer has done is a criminal offence (i.e. against the law). The assessment of whether there is sufficient evidence to prosecute is a matter of law. If the CPS had decided there was sufficient evidence there would have been a prosecution in a Court of law and the proceedings would have been governed by the law of evidence. The Jury would have decided guilt according to the rules of law and, if convicted, sentencing would have bee according to the law of sentencing.

What you are talking about is anarchy - simply having a random individual (you) deciding what is and isn't an offence and whether someone is or isn't guilty of it (based not on evidence but a few random bits of information you happen to have) and then deciding what you think is an appropriate sanction.

 

[xes]

This sort of hysterical statement is why no-one takes you seriously. It is everything about the law. What you believe the officer has done is a criminal offence (i.e. against the law). The assessment of whether there is sufficient evidence to prosecute is a matter of law. If the CPS had decided there was sufficient evidence there would have been a prosecution in a Court of law and the proceedings would have been governed by the law of evidence. The Jury would have decided guilt according to the rules of law and, if convicted, sentencing would have bee according to the law of sentencing.

What you are talking about is anarchy - simply having a random individual (you) deciding what is and isn't an offence and whether someone is or isn't guilty of it (based not on evidence but a few random bits of information you happen to have) and then deciding what you think is an appropriate sanction.

ok it may be "about" the law, if you want to be technical. but it is most certainly not about upholding any of it. (and people don't take me seriously cos i believe in little green men, nothing to do with my hysteria )

 

[detective-boy]

... because the evidence is as clear as day.

But it isn't.

SOME of the evidence is as clear as day - we know who used force and we know how they used force (the push and the baton strike). What isn't "clear as day" is what the officer's justification (or otherwise) for that use of force is (a piece of evidence necessary to prove that what happened was unlawful and amounted to a criminal assault), though the statement of the CPS suggests that it is not adequate. And what is most certainly not "clear as day" is that the use of force led to an injury which led to death or to any particular injury at ABH level (though, as I have said, this last point is, in my view, rather a weak part of the CPS decision).

 

[detective-boy]

If it hadn't been a policemen who was the assailant, then the cops wouldn't have drafted in their pet pathologist to ensure a verdict of death by natural causes.

As I have said, the cops didn't "draft in their pet pathologist" (a) because it wasn't their decision and he was "drafted in" by the City of London Coroner so far as I am aware and (b) he is anything but the police's pet pathologist (if they have one it is probably Nat Carey - by far the pathologist of choice for experienced senior investigating officers dealing with potentially difficult cases and, spookily, the one "drafted in" by the IPCC when they took over the investigation when the prior contact with police became apparent).

 

[xes]

It doesn't mattwer the motives or justification. that's not in question. Ian thomlisons family on the news stated that the CPS had said that There was an assault, and that the assault was UNLAWFUL. So it IS as clear as day.

 

[e19896]

Pc Harwood left the Metropolitan Police a decade ago amid controversy over an alleged off-duty road rage incident, then got a job with Surrey Police, where he was accused of using excessive force.

He could now face disciplinary charges over the death of Mr Tomlinson, and could also be the subject of an internal investigation by the Met into how he was allowed to rejoin the force despite having an unresolved disciplinary matter on his record.

The married 43 year-old had been due to face a misconduct hearing over the alleged road rage incident, understood to have happened in the late 1990s, but instead retired on medical grounds.

A few years later, the father of two rejoined the Met as a civilian computer worker before applying to Surrey Police for a job as a police constable in May 2003.

A spokesman for Surrey Police said: “He applied to become a Pc with us in 2003. Following our vetting procedure, liaising with the Met Police and passing a medical examination, he was accepted.

“He was full and frank about his history.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...-faced-two-previous-aggression-inquiries.html

 

[butchersapron]

It's amazing how obfuscation, incompetence and ignorance bracketed so often leads to such (clear decisions).

 

[detective-boy]

Fuck i agree with DB, for a change if The ABH was proven would those involved be sacked?, myself i doubt this would happen.

I think that in the circumstances a conviction for ABH would inevitably lead to dismissal. As I said, a disciplinary finding of (effectively) common assault which seems a distinct possibility on the basis of the CPS comments would be likely to.

 

[detective-boy]

It doesn't mattwer the motives or justification. that's not in question. Ian thomlisons family on the news stated that the CPS had said that There was an assault, and that the assault was UNLAWFUL. So it IS as clear as day.

Yes ... insofar as that goes - the use of force they say was unlawful ... but they then go on to explain that the next bit (what it caused) is anything but.

 

[Barking_Mad]

Not a Fan of DB at the best of times but here i have gained some good information this time round...<snip>

The problem is that for all DB's good intentions to explain the reasons, it all comes across as a bit Kafkaesque. What people see on the footage of Ian Tomlinson's death, and what they hear as the reasons for even the lack of any kind of admittance of personal guilt are completely contradictory. To be told that some law dictates x,y,z when a man lost his life due to the actions of one violent bully and a group of colleagues who failed to admonish him and look after a member of the public who they are signed up to supposedly protect...well it's no wonder he's on a hiding to nothing.

 

[e19896]

The problem is that for all DB's good intentions to explain the reasons, it all comes across as a bit Kafkaesque. What people see on the footage of Ian Tomlinson's death, and what they hear as the reasons for even the lack of any kind of admittance of personal guilt are completely contradictory. To be told that some law dictates x,y,z when a man lost his life due to the actions of one violent bully and a group of colleagues who failed to admonish him and look after a member of the public who they are signed up to supposedly protect...well it's no wonder he's on a hiding to nothing.

It seems PC Simon Harwood 'had history of aggression' the police officer who struck Ian Tomlinson minutes before he died, was previously investigated twice over his alleged aggressive behaviour, and The CPS would have known this information but he still walk from The MURDER he committed, i have become less cynical over the years but fuck this stinks of a cover up to say the least and in this http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...-faced-two-previous-aggression-inquiries.html article The Metropolitan Police declined to comment on the force’s decision to re-employ Pc Harwood in 2004, then he goes onto to MURDER Ian Tomlinson

 

[detective-boy]

The problem is that for all DB's good intentions to explain the reasons, it all comes across as a bit Kafkaesque. What people see on the footage of Ian Tomlinson's death, and what they hear as the reasons for even the lack of any kind of admittance of personal guilt are completely contradictory. To be told that some law dictates x,y,z when a man lost his life due to the actions of one violent bully and a group of colleagues who failed to admonish him and look after a member of the public who they are signed up to supposedly protect...well it's no wonder he's on a hiding to nothing.

There are clearly major issues in terms of the police-public relationship and there are (as usual) major concerns about the inability (or unwillingness) of the police service to acknowledge / apologise / explain until all proceedings are concluded (i.e. years later) ... but when you say a "man lost his life due to the actions of one violent bully" you are going beyond what we actually know or can prove, at least to the criminal standard.

It may be the case that a civil court (if the police / individual officer) are sued will decide that causation can be proven to the civil standard (the balance of probabilities) but we don't know that.

As for the actions of other officers, we don't know what was or was not reported by any of them at the time and the use of force was not so excessive as to clearly be a breach of the law - again we come back to the fact that some use of force may well have been justifiable and the push and single baton strike, though they look bad, primarily as Mr Tomlinson falls over, are not in and of themselves a massive use of force in the big scheme of things. We are a long was from a situation in which you can say that any officer nearby must have realised a criminal offence had been committed by a colleague.

 

[Spymaster]

.... when a man lost his life due to the actions of one violent bully......

If that could be proven, I'd bang him up for life.

But it can't can it?

 

[One_Stop_Shop]

DB you've said:

That is usually the case where the force is used by a police officer as in most cases (including here) they would say that they had a lawful reason to use SOME force.

Then:

Yes ... insofar as that goes - the use of force they say was unlawful

These two statements seem to contradict each other. And what possible reason did they have for using some force? The bloke was walking down the street not doing anything.

Also why didn't the CPS prosecute on common assault before the 6 month time limit and then go for a more serious charge if the investigation warranted it? Surely prosecuting on common assault wouldn't mean that more serious charges couldn't be brought?

Lastly you aren't a medical expert of any kind whatsoever yet you seem quite comfortable in stating that the views of the second two pathologists fundamentally depended on the findings of the first pathologist. Why are you so confident in that assertion? The second and third pathologist seem certain about their judgments. Given the first pathologist could well be found to be incompetent then the CPS could have proceeded on manslaughter and ABH charges. Whether a conviction would be be made is another matter, but there must surely be enough evidence to give it a go. The CPS could, they decided not to.

 

[detective-boy]

It seems PC Simon Harwood 'had history of aggression' the police officer who struck Ian Tomlinson minutes before he died, was previously investigated twice over his alleged aggressive behaviour, and The CPS would have known this information...

I am sure they would ... but sadly it doesn't help with the issue of causation which is the basis for there being no charge.

If there had been charges I am sure the CPS would have tried to use the previous incidents as part of the prosecution case under the fairly new provisions for the use of evidence of bad character (regardless of whether it led to a conviction).

And as for the fact he was re-employed after being (effectively) required to resign previously is sadly likely to turn out to be a major fuck-up ... Met vetting is a shambles, with lots of people being refused due to absolutely trivial matters and lots of instances of major issues not being identified ... There is also scope for improving the psychological assessment of officers (generally, or in relation to the TSG) ... but that is extremely unlikely to be possible in the current financial situation - if anything there will be more problems like this.

 

[One_Stop_Shop]

but that is extremely unlikely to be possible in the current financial situation - if anything there will be more problems like this.

Yes especially as the government will need the police to crack down on protests and strikes against the cuts. You can be sure there will be more of this.

 

[xes]

papers tomorow are largely going with the Thomlinson story, and also that the IPCC suggested that they should bring manslaughter charges, and they were ignored.

Why was the IPCC ignored?

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

Why was the IPCC ignored?

cos its a fucking stitch-up basically

 

[e19896]

Yes especially as the government will need the police to crack down on protests and strikes against the cuts. You can be sure there will be more of this.

I have to agree to be frank, just what the fuck is going on here that the likes of PC Simon Harwood who 'had history of aggression can just walk from MURDER not good to say this but i have been thinking if only the alleged Hart Attack was some what more serious, what utter bullshit and then we have the same old lies from The Met, from 1984 to now they attack beat and murder the public and walk free, to do the same once more.

 

[Weller]

The married 43 year-old had been due to face a misconduct hearing over the alleged road rage incident, understood to have happened in the late 1990s, but instead retired on medical grounds.
A few years later, the father of two rejoined the Met as a civilian computer worker before applying to Surrey Police for a job as a police constable in May 2003.

This sort of stuff should not shock me any longer considering the corruption in the past few years but somehow it still shocks me that those in the police force know this goes on and never ever seem to be able accept any criticism whatsoever even when an innocent bloke is killed

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

Interesting innit. The CPS wail that the OB say that they hide behind that, when their version is that the OB don't bring cases before them in the first place. But they're clearly hiding behind it now.

i wouldn't say "interesting" as much as "fucking bent" tbh.

 

[detective-boy]

These two statements seem to contradict each other.

Not at all. The CPS don't say that there was no reason to use any force - they say that the force used was unlawful - that may be on the basis that there was no lawful reason to use any force at all but I suspect that it was on the basis that it was excessive.

And what possible reason did they have for using some force? The bloke was walking down the street not doing anything.

If that's all he was doing, probably none. But if he, or any other protestors / people around him, were resisting the police's lawful attempts to move them down the street then some use of force to "hurry" them along would be justifiable and is frequently used. Even if there was very little resistance then some force to turn him around or to propel him along in front of the police line would be justifiable as it is simply impracticable for there to be a debate with every individual person encountered by the police line to explain everything that is going on and try and persuade them to comply with the police request to go in a particular direction - the operation would simply grind to a halt and fall apart.

Also why didn't the CPS prosecute on common assault before the 6 month time limit and then go for a more serious charge if the investigation warranted it? Surely prosecuting on common assault wouldn't mean that more serious charges couldn't be brought?

Arguably it would - there is a principle called autrefois convict (or autrefois acquit) which means that if you are charged with something you have previously been convicted of (or acquitted of) the case will be thrown out and, so far as I am aware, that would apply in a case where a lesser charge based on exactly the same facts (i.e. the same use of force) had happened. It would be interesting to know whether or not they actually considered what to do at the six month stage (as opposed to realising they had missed it when finally realising they had no more serious charges likely to succeed).

Lastly you aren't a medical expert of any kind whatsoever yet you seem quite comfortable in stating that the views of the second two pathologists fundamentally depended on the findings of the first pathologist. Why are you so confident in that assertion? The second and third pathologist seem certain about their judgments.

I am a senior investigating officer and I understand how to put together and interpret evidence. I have experienced dozens of post-mortems and the various issues arising in cases where there are multiple post-mortems. The statement of the CPS (to the effect that the subsequent PMs were reliant on observations made in the first one) is absolutely consistent with all my experience. You only get to open a body up once. You only get to see the contents of the abdomen once. Bodies degenerate after death (despite refrigeration) and some aspects go quite quickly and so you only get one chance to see them. In this case, where abdominal bleeding is the postulated cause of death by the second and third pathologist, the exact nature of the three litres of fluid found in the first PM in the abdomen is of crucial importance. There was no sample and all they have is Freddy Patels observation about what it was ... and apparently there is some discreancy in how he described it (i.e. whether it was blood, or just contained a bit of blood - 3l of blood would be a major issue and even Freddy would have noticed that that might be a significant factor in cause of death so I suspect that it probably wasn't blood ... but only he knows and the subseqent findings are reliant on his observation.

Given the first pathologist could well be found to be incompetent then the CPS could have proceeded on manslaughter and ABH charges. Whether a conviction would be be made is another matter, but there must surely be enough evidence to give it a go. The CPS could, they decided not to

They could have "given it a go" ... but that is not what they have a duty to do: they have a duty to, first, decide whether there is sufficient evidence on which a conviction is likely (i.e. something over a 50% chance) and then (and only if they decide there is sufficient evidence) to decide whether it is in the public interest to proceed (something they would not have had any problem with in this case ... but they never got beyond their first question).

 

[Barking_Mad]

But it isn't.

SOME of the evidence is as clear as day - we know who used force and we know how they used force (the push and the baton strike). What isn't "clear as day" is what the officer's justification (or otherwise) for that use of force is (a piece of evidence necessary to prove that what happened was unlawful and amounted to a criminal assault),

Ok, ill play along for just one moment.

Why would trained a group of supposedly highly trained riot officers, with helmets, protective padding and batons, need "justification" to allow their police dog to bite a man before hitting him across the back of the legs and then allowing one of their officers to violently shove him to the floor as he was walking away from them with his hands in his pockets? (this is not a "use of force" as you put it, it's a violent assault on an unarmed and defenseless man.)

There is no justification for the individual officers action or the group as a whole, because you can't justify supposed public servants brutalising someone they are supposedly paid to protect and then failing to look after their welfare by leaving them sprawled on the pavement.

Whilst no one can be entirely sure Ian Tomlinson would not have not have dropped dead in the same fashion as he did - had he been left alone by those armed thugs that day, it's pretty safe to claim that the overwhelming balance of probabilities suggests he would still have been alive 5 minutes later...

 

[detective-boy]

Why was the IPCC ignored?

They undoubtedly weren't "ignored" - their recommendation would have been noted by the CPS ... but it is the CPS who decide whether there is sufficient evidence or not and the IPCC are NOT lawyers. The police regularly recommend all sorts of things to the CPS only for the CPS to disagree. It's what independence is all about ... if all they did was what the police / IPCC told them they wouldn't be independent ...

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

yawn yawn yawn. db pops up like fucking noddy when the cps collude with the cops on one of the most questionable decisions i can remember seeing.

sometimes, you might want to acknowledge that your people kill other people indiscriminately. for no reason and with no retribution.

then you might begin to understand some of the anger. ha!

 

[detective-boy]

Why would trained a group of supposedly highly trained riot officers, with helmets, protective padding and batons, need "justification" to allow their police dog to bite a man before hitting him across the back of the legs and then allowing one of their officers to violently shove him to the floor as he was walking away from them with his hands in his pockets? (this is not a "use of force" as you put it, it's a violent assault on an unarmed and defenseless man.)

Because unless there is a justification for a use of force then it is an assault.

(And your use of emotive language is exactly the sort of thing you would (rightly) criticise the police for if they did it)

There is no justification for the individual officers action or the group as a whole, because you can't justify supposed public servants brutalising someone they are supposedly paid to protect and then failing to look after their welfare by leaving them sprawled on the pavement.

If no-one else was helping him up you'd have a point. If they just stepped over him and left him lying there you'd have a point. But they didn't and I don't for one moment expect that anyone present expected anything other than that he would have a couple of bruises and grazes as a result of falling over.

Whilst no one can be entirely sure Ian Tomlinson would not have not have dropped dead in the same fashion as he did - had he been left alone by those armed thugs that day, it's pretty safe to claim that the overwhelming balance of probabilities suggests he would still have been alive 5 minutes later...

Balance of probabilities, maybe. But the criminal law require beyond reasonable doubt.

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

Balance of probabilities, maybe. But the criminal law require beyond reasonable doubt.

for a conviction, you need a judge and jury to hear the case, something we don't have here.

 

[Barking_Mad]

Even if there was very little resistance then some force to turn him around or to propel him along in front of the police line would be justifiable as it is simply impracticable for there to be a debate with every individual person encountered by the police line to explain everything that is going on and try and persuade them to comply with the police request to go in a particular direction - the operation would simply grind to a halt and fall apart.

If i wanted people out of my way then id suggest violently shoving them over and leaving them sprawled on the floor is not the best technique....But yes regardless, let us not have "the operation grind to a halt and fall apart" because of a middle aged man with his hands in his pockets.

If that happened, then just imagine how many people would have to be pushed over?

 

[detective-boy]

yawn yawn yawn. db pops up like fucking noddy ...

yawn yawn yawn. Paulie Tandoori pops up like fucking noddy ...

sometimes, you might want to acknowledge that your people kill other people indiscriminately. for no reason and with no retribution.

But they don't. Sometimes there are tragic outcomes. Sometimes excessive force is used. Sometimes other mistakes are made. But you are talking absolute bollocks to claim that the police "kill other people indiscriminately". Best you try Rio de Janeiro for that ... More bollocks hyperbole obscuring the genuine issues ...

then you might begin to understand some of the anger. ha!

I understand the anger ... which is why I suggest ways of improving the situation we have.

 

[FreddyB]

More people now see the police as a corrupt bunch of cunts. People trust them less and respect them less, no amount of posts by DB is going to make a blind bit of difference. They've made a rod for their own backs. Fuck em.