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

[ViolentPanda]

I'm surprised that you consider that the impartial operation of the Criminal Justice system should be subject to perversion in the interests of public relations ...

I'm surprised you'd opine that the criminal justice system operates impartially, so it's little wonder you're confused, with such errant beliefs.

 

[One_Stop_Shop]

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.

But you are entirely speculating. From the video none of these things were happening. The situation didn't seem particularly tense and he was walking away. The police officer stepped in and aggressively pushed him over as he was walking away. Have a look at the video again, where is there any evidence for using any force whatsoever?

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).

Firstly you don't seem certain of this. Secondly the investigation would almost certainly have thrown up new facts. I would like to know for certain whether a conviction of common assault (which everyone seems certain would happen), would mean that a greater charge could not have been brought later, even if new facts came to light.

If it couldn't then the law needs to be changed in the way you describe earlier. Perhaps one reason it hasn't been changed is because it is in the interests of the establishment not to.

On medical evidence you are still speculating, you don't know anything for sure. You cannot be in any way sure that the second and third pathologist wouldn't be able to convince a jury of their findings and show that they were certain of this regardless of what the first pathologist said and did. You might have been on a lot of cases, you are no medical expert.

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).

I know the decision they came to. But I strongly suspect that the conclusion was politically motivated. Given that the 50% bench mark is very subjective they could have gone with it.

Incidentally even when there is clear evidence of someone being shot on the floor the police can laughably get away with murder or voluntary manslaughter by saying "I shot him in the back because I thought I was pulling out a taser". You seriously couldn't make this up. A hand gun and taser feel and look entirely different:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10565543

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

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


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 ...


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

yes they clearly fucking do numb nuts

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

fucking tragic outcomes.....

cops kill people and get away with it. standard.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Yes there would. In "ordinary" cases there is usually a use of force by a suspect who has no lawful reason to use force at all. In cases where the police have used force there is usually a lawful reason to use some force and hence there is an additional (and unless the force used is grossly excessive difficult to overcome) burden. The law (relating to any lawful use of force generally, not specific to use by the police) is that no-one is expected to weigh the use of force to a nicety in a difficult situation with no time to think (see s.76(7) Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 - legislation brought in to try and address the householder use of force issue). Where there is a lawful reason to use force, courts (including juries) are reluctant to convict anyone (not just police officers) who may have used a bit much (see numerous householder cases, numerous cases involving door staff, etc.).

Some eggs and bacon with your massive waffle, sir?

 

[butchersapron]

14 brackets

 

[Barking_Mad]

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)

A use of force might be considered police using their power to arrest someone and handcuff them. Id say violently shoving someone over falls outside this use of these weasel words.

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.

1) They didn't go over to him, a member of the public went over and helped him to his feet.

2) He didn't fall over, he was shoved over unexpectedly from behind. He had his hands in his pockets and landed partly face first

3) A one foot fall can fracture your skull - and yes he didn't die from a fractured skull, but you can't trust to retrospection.

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

So the police can shove anyone over with a medical condition similar to his own and should they die say, "well actually, he might have died that day because of condition x, and you can't prove this wouldn't have happened beyond reasonable doubt."


Id rather not live in a world like that, call me odd, but you know...

 

[winjer]

The full CPS statement:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jul/22/cps-statement-death-ian-tomlinson

They can't even get the street he died on right:

"Bystanders helped Mr Tomlinson to his feet. He then left Royal Exchange [Buildings] and walked a short distance into Threadneedle Street [actually Cornhill]. He was seen by members of the public to walk up the street and then appeared to bump into a building and slowly collapsed to the floor."

Fair fills me with confidence in their abilities.

 

[Weller]

This thug avoided a misconduct hearing on medical grounds and then managed to rejoin with that unresolved , how the f*ck is anyone watching and reading this in/on the news going to believe that there has NOT been a cover up.

Total waste of time in my opinion db harping on about what the law and procedure "actually" is , it just shows that even when some have left the force they still want to defend it even when it is so so obvious for anyone seeing all this shortly after the Raoul Moat massive spending spree and task force , RAF jet , armored vehicles because "they" were threatened .

Nobody really cares surely what the "law" actually is when it is so clearly F*cked up and corrupt .

 

[ViolentPanda]

or asked to 'reflect on his actions' like the lunatic who tried to strangle me

Quite.
Logically, they're not all "bastards" and "lunatics", but they're part of an institution which operates as a "closed society", and that being so, they're well placed to circumvent or frustrate procedure that "mere mortals" cannot.

 

[flickerx]

I'm incredibly angry and disgusted at this outcome - but most of all I feel really sad for the poor guy, just a newspaper seller, dead, for no reason whatsoever, except pure thuggery on the part of someone who is supposed to be protecting him.

Shame on the police and the CPS.

 

[The Black Hand]

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

I have to agree, it brings me no joy but I did not expect any other result. The police protect the system, the system protects the police - this symbiotic relationship that delivers no justice, that causes so many tragedies and causes only pain IS the British way. Unfortunately there is a wealth of cases and literature that shows this process in action.

 

[London_Calling]

I'm trying to remember back, didn't cctv go missing?

 

[butchersapron]

Coles said bungling at the start of the investigation had cost crucial evidence. She said the alleged mistakes included the decision by the Independent Police Complaints Commission to hand initial responsibility for the inquiry to City of London police. She said: "It was not treated as a potential crime from the outset and so evidence was lost."

What was lost? What sort of stuff? Who had it? When did it get lost? How?

 

[The Black Hand]

What was lost? What sort of stuff? Who had it? When did it get lost? How?

Good and pertinent questions Butch.

 

[butchersapron]

Why wasn't it treated as a potential crime? What's the normal procedure for non-potential criminal deaths like this? Why was it different from potential crimes? What procedures were changed from normal?

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

What was lost? What sort of stuff? Who had it? When did it get lost? How?

it does my brains in tbh. the duplicity, the arrogance, the sheer brass neck of the establishment.

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

Why wasn't it treated as a potential crime? What's the normal procedure for non-potential criminal deaths like this? Why was it different from potential crimes? What procedures were changed from normal?

none of it. cops kill people and that's ok, cos we're criminals.

 

[London_Calling]

Normally you obviously have an arrest, either at the scene or following enquiries. Then the system kicks in and a process is followed, taking into account time limits. I don't think the OB in question was ever arrested even though his ID was known on the day.

Suspended on full pay at the time, and is still suspended on full pay.

 

[butchersapron]

none of it. cops kill people and that's ok, cos we're criminals.

Only one way to fightback though - it's together against these people. Don't let people like d-b waffle you into submission.

 

[Frankie Jack]

fucking tragic outcomes.....

cops kill people and get away with it. standard.

People kill people and get away with it.. If one of our people get killed.. who do we want to find out who did it........

 

[The Black Hand]

Why wasn't it treated as a potential crime? What's the normal procedure for non-potential criminal deaths like this? Why was it different from potential crimes? What procedures were changed from normal?

You'll be starting a criminology course soon Butch. Who is tasked with enforcing the law? The Police? Who polices the police? The Police. I remember that old P.R.O.P book, "Who Guards the Guards" (talking about Prison officer brutality towards prisoners) and it is a good way to look at what happens. Given that the police hear no evil see no evil etc when other police break the law (and there are many - that old Phil OChs song was right 'there are muderers and more in the police') then there is no hurry and certainly no critical awareness used when collecting and safeguarding evidence that may one day be used in court. Its a mixture of bluster, blunder and incompetance that is deliberately created and the system 'saves the day' and delivers the verdict they all wanted all along.

 

[The Black Hand]

it does my brains in tbh. the duplicity, the arrogance, the sheer brass neck of the establishment.

Yeah, I always imagine I hear Oxbridge public schools accents doing the deals...

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

People kill people and get away with it.. If one of our people get killed.. who do we want to find out who did it........

sorry but i think that's bollocks. cops have a preferential place within our society, if you're going to take the calling, you do so with certain responsibilities and needlessly killing some random bloke isn't one of those imo. i don't agree with the institution per se, i don't think we need some national guard, but whatever your colours, this is state murder, sanctioned and signed off as something meaningless.

which is disgusting.

 

[winjer]

http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/articles/the_death_of_ian_tomlinson_decision_on_prosecution/

Whilst the officer was entitled to require Mr Tomlinson to move out of Royal Exchange, there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of proving that his actions were disproportionate and unjustified.

Anyone know what the basis for that would be, preventing a breach of the peace?

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/articles/the_death_of_ian_tomlinson_decision_on_prosecution/



Anyone know what the basis for that would be, preventing a breach of the peace?

anything which starts:

In the interests of transparency and accountability, the Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer QC, has decided that this detailed explanation of the circumstances surrounding Mr Tomlinson's death and the reasons for the decision not to bring a prosecution should be published.

is gonna be a fucking stitch-up. i can't even believe people are taking this mockery of justice seriously. there is no legal substance for the decision, this is a white-wash.

 

[butchersapron]

Let's just get this clear before the next round of shit - the IPCC thought the investigation warranted a prosecution on manslaughter - despite patel's autopsy. Let's make that fact clear.

 

[butchersapron]

The pathologist who carried out the 2nd autopsy says this is is a crock of shit and would have testified to that account - i.e against the CPS pic of only patel's autopsy

He said his report contained clear evidence that Tomlinson suffered injuries sufficient to support an ABHcharge. The CPS dismissed the injuries as "relatively minor" and thus not enough to support a charge of ABH in its written reasons given to the family.

Cary, speaking for the first time about the case, said: "I'm quite happy to challenge that. The injuries were not relatively minor. He sustained quite a large area of bruising. Such injuries are consistent with a baton strike, which could amount to ABH. It's extraordinary. If that's not ABH I would like to know what is."

Let's not talk anymore about a push. Why have we allowed them to do that?

 

[DotCommunist]

'we' allowed nothing. They control the discourse, you know that.

 

[butchersapron]

I don't. I profoundly disagree with that and i've spend many thousands of words telling you why i disagree exactly with that.

No, we're not powerless. Make the talk about why push means attack with a baton. I'm not on about his specific case either. Why can the bbc just lie like this? Because they know they're not in the slightest bit responsible to me or you. (They're not tbh - fuck the BBC).