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

[detective-boy]

Corruption is the ONLY reason for it.

Course it is dear ... if you ignore the fucking explanation for the evidential dificulties provided at great length by the CPS ...

I really wonder why anyone bothers trying to explain anything to fuckwits like you when you simply take no fucking notice whatsoever and just jump to whatever conclusions fit your prejudices. It really is a waste of fucking time and public money - if you're too fucking thick / prejudiced to properly engage with information what is the fucking point?

 

[DotCommunist]

anyone interested on reading up on deaths in police custody might be interested to read this PDF
http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/prgpdfs/fprs26.pdf

 

[ViolentPanda]

I'm terribly sorry if the law as it is does not conform with your prejudices.

But it is the law whether you like it or not.

No, it's an interpretation of the law. Yours. That's why we end up with what seem like diametrically-opposed verdicts proceeding from seemingly identical cases: The law is, in it's final analysis, interpreted.

But you know that. You're legally-qualified.

 

[detective-boy]

Well I'd seen that video before the post-mortem was done, so I'm fairly confident that it was known at the time.

That's a fucking neat trick then ...

First post-mortem carried out 3 April. (Source CPS report: http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/articles/the_death_of_ian_tomlinson_decision_on_prosecution/

Witnesses start to come forward suggesting some incident with the police (3-6 April) and Guardian obtain and publicise video (7 April (i.e. 4 days after the first PM)) (Source: Guardian's own timeline: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/may/15/ian-tomlinson-death-g20)

Please stop making things up to bolster your conspiracy theory ...

 

[Urbanblues]

Once again Old Bill is held up to be above the law. When my mother, an 87-year old law abiding citizen who has never had a bad word for the police, views this as a ‘bloody disgrace’ and ‘they’re getting away with murder’, then they’re on a slippery slope.

DB, I think you’d be well advised to employ an assistant; for I can see a turbulent future ahead for the police and their reputation – perceived or otherwise.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Er, no. The IPCC. Try and keep up.

So the IPCC are in charge of police discipline and good conduct?
No, of course they aren't. The police service itself polices those aspects of "policing the police". The IPCC only tend to deal with the most egregious violations, as an earlier post that detailed their rate of complaint uptake illustrated.

Instead of rolling your eyes, how about engaging your grey matter?

 

[detective-boy]

who get ignored when they say that manslaughter charges should be brought forward to a police man. once again, the goverment investigate the goverment, and find themselves innocent. What a supprise.

You really are talking bollocks here. The status of the CPS is exactly the same as the IPCC - both are agencies of the State and both are independent of the police (although both are equally alleged to be too close to the police). They have different roles, however. It is the IPCCs job to investigate (as they are investigators, not lawyers) and submit a report, with recommendations if they wish, to the CPS. It is the role of the CPS (who are lawyers, not investigators) to consider such reports and make a decision as to legal proceedings. They frequently disagree (as do the police and the CPS in ordinary cases) and, when they do, the CPS decision is the one which matters.

 

[xes]

it's not a theory,i t's a fact. the police have yet again, covered up a death. YET AGAIN. it is indefensible. But here you are, defending it, saying that you're not defending it. A massive fundamental wrong has been committed. A massive one. it's quite obvious to everyone but you. Why is that?

 

[cesare]

That's a fucking neat trick then ...

First post-mortem carried out 3 April. (Source CPS report: http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/articles/the_death_of_ian_tomlinson_decision_on_prosecution/

Witnesses start to come forward suggesting some incident with the police (3-6 April) and Guardian obtain and publicise video (7 April (i.e. 4 days after the first PM)) (Source: Guardian's own timeline: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/may/15/ian-tomlinson-death-g20)

Please stop making things up to bolster your conspiracy theory ...

There were witnesses flooding the internet with their version of events right from the off, together with videos, photos etc ............. so you can take this >><< and stick it where the law don't shine.

 

[tarannau]

So DB, would you recommend any disciplinary action for the officers who fed the family duff information, implied that it could be a protestor in a police outfit, or that prematurely announced that he died of a heart attack? You know, after they pulled the same trick as they did with DeMenezes, slurring his reputation in public and implying that he was a troublemaker.

How many officers were really disciplined for taking off their badges and concealing their identity btw? Surely even one senior officer must have been demoted for not taking any supervisory action? What sort of amateurish organisation is this?

 

[detective-boy]

... which thinks that the police are beyond the law. as you clearly do.

I don't though. I think the police are entirely subject to the law. And I have even suggested that we should have some additional process whereby they are held to account in a public setting in cases like this. I would even support a change to prosecutions based on the (legal) requirement for a prima facie case rather than the CPS evidential test which applies to all other citizens in cases where the police (or any other State agent) has caused death or serious harm.

It is YOU who is arguing that police should NOT be subjected to the application of the law of the land but should be summarily sacked / convicted when something bad happens regardless of any actual culpability ...

 

[xes]

How many officers were really disciplined for taking off their badges and concealing their identity btw? Surely even one senior officer must have been demoted for not taking any supervisory action? What sort of amateurish organisation is this?

Last night as i was turning the TV off, I heard something about nearly 300 complaints being made after the G20 protests. Over 80 of those were deemed worthy of investigation by the IPCC, yet not one single complaint was followed up on.

Now, "detective boy" why is this? other than utter 100% police corruption?

 

[Streathamite]

. It should certainly be learning from this incident that any death in the vicinity of public disorder or any large scale police operation should be treated as an unexplained death until there is reliable evidence that there are no suspicious circumstances.)

doesn't the fact that this was not 100% standard procedure - carved in stone in the procedural rulebook - stand as a very large black mark over the criminal justice system? surely there should be zero doubt about it being an 'unexplained death'.

 

[detective-boy]

tbf, I think DB is all too painfully aware that police faith in the dibble is at an all time low, and with good reason

I am more than aware of the issues with police-public relations ... but I believe we need to establish genuine issues which can be addressed from knee-jerk, inaccurate ranting which can't. If you put together a reasoned argument for genuine issues to be dealt with then the police / government / etc. find it far more difficult to dismiss them than if you simply rant inaccurately about things that are simply not wrong.

 

[tarannau]

Leaving legal excuses aside, what's to stop the police having stronger internal disciplinary procedures?

Why the hell haven't more of these officers been disciplined, demoted or given written advice. There's nothing to stop the force aiming for higher standards and to stop hiding behind the letter of the law?

 

[detective-boy]

This is the part I'm unclear about. Are they hindered in some way from bringing a prosecution that might not succeed?

Yes. The Evidential Test that they are bound to apply:

http://www.cps.gov.uk/about/principles.html

They must conclude that there is a realistic chance of a conviction before agreeing to proceed with a prosecution. They apply it in a way which means "ordinary" crims walk out of the door all the time. It is linked to their performance indicator being a low number of failed prosecutions - if they go ahead with weak cases more of them fail and count against them and so their performance indicator mitigates against them pursuing weak cases.

This is a general rule - it is NOT something they apply only in police cases. (In fact, if this were an ordinary case and Mr Tomlinson had died after being pushed over by someone in a fight outside a pub or something I think they would have made a decision not to prosecute a damn sight sooner than they did and whilst they may have had one case conference to try and resolve the medical evidence issues the DPP would most definitely not have been there and they wouldn't have had several!

 

[xes]

I don't though. I think the police are entirely subject to the law.

But that's the thing, they're not. This case shows that in glorious technicolour. You can think that they are, but actual happenings show that not to be the case. I'll even appologise to you, for the shit i throw your way, as it's a little bit mean in some cases. but you've got to understand why I feel that way. it's not because I'm ill-informed, like you think. It's because time and time again, the police kill someone, and get away with it. And they get away with it using the most stupid fucking reasoning possible. And I swear they do it to piss me off. Stupid little loopholes, that are there apparently to make sure that people who are innocent get a fair chance. But are used against that, to get guilty people off.

Like here, where a man was assaulted, and was dead 5 minutes later. That's the crime that was committed. you can put what you like ontop of that, but that is what happened. It was found that the attacking of the man was unlawful. Therefor it must be ABH at the very least. But as Ian Thomlison died as a result of his injuries (and he did, 5 minutes after being attacked he's dead, you do the math) then the ONLY outcome is manslaughter. It would have been if it were an ordinary member of the public. And you know it, deep down you must do. You can say that each case is different and blah blah blah. but you know, and I know you know, which is what makes it all the more infuriating.

Now this is all on video, the attack, the sound of poor Ian slamming his head into the ground, the complete randomness of it. (lets face it, walking onfront of a trained riot cop, does not = assault) It's on video. If that was anyone else, there would be no reasonable doubt. and infact there wasn't. It was only because the police sided with a bogus pathology report. (look, it was, just look at the evidence) and not the other that completly contradicted it, and because it took so fucking long to get to court. And you can bet your arse that it would have come to case quicker if there wasn't a copper at the wrong end of it. (I know that's an assumption, but it's a reasonable one, admit it)

Ian thomlinsons family were right up against it from the start. the police had everything in place for a cover up, and that IS what has happened here. It's not conspiracy, it's happened. Don't get mad at us for pointing it out, that's missplaced anger. be angry at those who have done this, and have done it for a long long time. (and will continue to do this, until they are stopped) I'm sorry that I've been a reactionary cunt toward you, but surely you can see my side, and why I'm/we're so angry?

When you sit there and deny all of this, you can see how it looks, surely.

 

[detective-boy]

If it went to a jury are you equally confident that they would find this policeman not guilty?

I would suspect that the balance of evidence would outweigh any guidance from the judge. After all respected pathologists seem to be tripping over themselves in the haste to suggest that they'd happily argue the case against the discredited Mr Patel

If it went to a prosecution I would expect the defence to make a submission of "no case to answer" on manslaughter at half time on the basis that no properly directed jury could conclude that there was causation proven beyond reasonable doubt and I would expect a judge to agree and to direct the jury to acquit on the manslaughter count.

I would expect a jury to convict on a charge of ABH and I would not anticipate any half-time submission in reation to that being successful (assuming there is nothing else that we don't know about in the 30secs / 100yds prior to the video starting which would justify the use of such a level of force).

The CPS decision in relation to ABH is not convincing. In law (as opposed to the CPS Charging Standards, see later) for an ABH there has to be an injury which "interferes with the health and confort" of the victim. This is usually translated as meaning something which is more than merely trivial, which lasts for more than a few minutes or hours and that usually needs some form of first aid or possibly even basic medical treatment. In law significant bruising can be ABH. The CPS Charging Standards, however (which do not reflect the law but which are the standards they are duty bound to apply (and which they apply all the time to reduce charges where police officers are victims to common assault / assault on police from ABH or even GBH level and which are a major area of friction between police and CPS)) set a much higher threshold: loss or breaking of tooth or teeth;temporary loss of sensory functions, which may include loss of consciousness; extensive or multiple bruising; displaced broken nose; minor fractures; minor, but not merely superficial, cuts of a sort probably requiring medical treatment (e.g. stitches); psychiatric injury that is more than mere emotions such as fear, distress or panic.

Applying this test, the only injury which amounted to ABH that seems to have been present would be the fatal, internal bleed and clearly the same causation problems apply in relation to that as an ABH injury as they do to it as a manslaughter cause of death.

That left only the bruising from the baton which whilst (as noted by Nat Carey) amounts to ABH in law, does NOT amount to ABH in the CPS Charging Standards (not being "extensive or multiple" bruising). If they had decided to go ahead with an ABH prosecution on this basis, the CPS would be absolutely 100% sure that the defence would jump all over them, arguing an abuse of process and being able to call evidence of dozens (if not hundreds) of similar assaults on police officers (and others) which were reduced from ABH and prosecuted as common assault or assault on police. This would be extremely likely to succeed as an "abuse of process" pre-trial argument and would also be even more likely to bring pain and criticism than biting the bullet and making the decision at the outset.

I think if you asked 100 coppers, 99 would say drop the CPS Charging Standard for ABH and bring it back in line with what the law actually requires ... and if that means a charge against the officer in this case, that is a fair outcome.

 

[Barking_Mad]

A lawful, reasonable, necessary and proportinate use of force can be absolutely anything, from a slight touch to knowingly killing someone. Violently pushing someone (with or without any foresight that they would be likely to fall over) could be a lawful, reasonable, necessary and proportionate use of force in a wide range of circumstances. To simply look at the act and decide whether or not it is lawful or not from that alone simply demonstrates your ignorance of the law.

I don't need "the law" to know that the "use of force" in this case, to move Ian Tomlinson was completely disproportionate, unnecessary and violent from someone who is paid to protect the public. Quote “the law” all you like….

Why do fuckwits concentrate on the use of the word "fall". It isn't mutually exclusive with there being a push - the fall is clearly directly the result of the push. Use of the word fal to escribe what happened after the push does not imply any suggestion that it was nothing to do with the push. Only an obsessive fuckwit, looking for issues where none exist, would think otherwise ...

Because “the fall” was was proceeded by a violent shove in the back which caused him to land partly on his head as his hands were in his pockets. Consciously or otherwise your wording removed the violence from what happened and left it dangling out of context. Old and frail people ‘fall’, Ian Tomlinson was violently shoved to the ground.

Yes, but that was not my fucking point was it? 99 times out of 100 a push does not lead to a fall and 99 times out of 100 a fall doesn't lead to a fractured skull. It would not be a "reasonably foreseeable" outcome in the circumstances which existed. (And before you go off on one, this is NOT the same as saying that if it did there would be no liability - there obviously would).

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.

99 times out of a 100? So you're a statistician as well? He fell on his head, on to concrete from 5ft+ up at speed. Perhaps it says much about your levels of compassion for your fellow man that you (and those on duty) expected nothing more than “a couple of bruises and grazes.” Maybe he had concussion? But they wouldn't have known because they didn't check.

If the policeman was defending himself by pushing someone who was attacking him away, then I’d agree, but he wasn’t. He ran up behind a defenceless man with his hands in his pockets and violently shoved him in the back before he and his colleagues left him sprawling on the ground.

Anyhow that’s my lot, I cant be arsed dealing with anymore of your rancid abuse.

 

[detective-boy]

That would be the evidence from a coroner who doesn't appear to have had any contract with the police at the time of the post mortem, who has been barred from the Home Office register of accredited forensic pathologists and from carrying out postmortems in "suspicious death" cases...

You mean pathologist, not coroner. And this was not a "suspicious death" case at the time he was appointed and so it was perfectly legitimate for him to be appointed to conduct the routine post-mortem as he was not struck off or suspended.

Please go and read the posts I have already made explaining why the evidence of the two subsequent pathologists is inevitably dependant on his findings / observations. In short they conclude the cause of death was internal bleeding even though they could find NO evidence of a rupture that would likely to cause such bleeding on the basis of his finding that there was "intraabdominal fluid blood about 3l with small blood clot" in his first report which they interpreted as meaning there was 3l of blood (a very significant amount). He later clarified his finding to mean "intraabdominal fluid with blood about 3l with small blood clot and further elaborated that it was ascites fluid (which arises from a liver trauma) stained with blood (i.e. the amount of actual blood was way less than the 3l used as the basis for the other pathologists conclusions. He also said he had not found any rupture capable of bleeding fatally. Their conclusions are inevitably undermined by his initial findings as subsequently elaborated (like most doctors, pathologists are prone to abbreviate their reports and so the absence of the word "with" in his first report is not in and of itself impossible, particularly as it was written at the time it was just one of thousands of routine PM reports he had written).

 

[Streathamite]

I am more than aware of the issues with police-public relations ... but I believe we need to establish genuine issues which can be addressed from knee-jerk, inaccurate ranting which can't. If you put together a reasoned argument for genuine issues to be dealt with then the police / government / etc. find it far more difficult to dismiss them than if you simply rant inaccurately about things that are simply not wrong.

where on earth have I 'ranted'? I don't, by and large, anywhere.
e2a: it's more than just 'issues' now, btw. To me, the only worthwhile policing is policing by consent. That was once there in the mainstream (as opposed to the U75-esque fringes). In that mainstream, public confidence in the police, and therefore that consent, is at an all-time, critical-point low.

 

[detective-boy]

anyone interested on reading up on deaths in police custody might be interested to read this PDF
http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/prgpdfs/fprs26.pdf

And anyone doing so would be well-advised to note that "deaths in custody" is NOT just cases where proactive / deliberate police use of force, etc. led to death (e.g. of the 277 cases between 1990 and 1996 where there was more than a "tangential" involvement of police, death was caused by the defendants own action in 172 cases (63%); by their medical condition in 81 cases (29%) and by the actions of someone else (police or otherwise) in just 22 cases (8%)).

Whilst any death in police custody / care, whether by suicide, or due to some illness, etc. is of concern I wouldn't want you all running off and getting you knickers in a twist about these hundreds of police "killings" ....

 

[Pickman's model]

They are talking of evidence from the post-mortem ... which, because it was not known that there had been police contact (or any other suspicious circumstance) was a routine post-mortem rather a "special" one with all that comes with that ... something which I have discussed ad fucking nauseum throughout this thread.

who are you saying didn't know there had been police contact?

 

[agricola]

I don't though. I think the police are entirely subject to the law. And I have even suggested that we should have some additional process whereby they are held to account in a public setting in cases like this. I would even support a change to prosecutions based on the (legal) requirement for a prima facie case rather than the CPS evidential test which applies to all other citizens in cases where the police (or any other State agent) has caused death or serious harm.

The thing is DB though that this argument is very hard to sustain in the face of decisions like this - the perception will be that the police are (on occasion anyway) above being held accountable by the law because of the decisions (taken in this case against the recommendation of the investigating officers, lets not forget) of the CPS, and I am not at all sure that the perception is all that wrong when it comes to Tomlinson. It would have been difficult to successfully prosecute this PC for manslaughter (though not impossible given the specific circumstances of this case), but it does beg the question whether there was a reasonable chance that they would have found him not guilty of malfeasance given the nature of the offence, and/or of ABH (given Carey's comments earlier).

 

[cesare]

<snip> And this was not a "suspicious death" case at the time he was appointed and so it was perfectly legitimate for him to be appointed to conduct the routine post-mortem as he was not struck off or suspended. <snip>

One of the problems here, is that very many people were saying very vociferously, that it was a "suspicious death" from the outset.

 

[e19896]

After being told there would be no charges Paul King confronted Keir Starmer with these words:

‘ YOU GET BACK TO YOUR MILLION POUND HOUSE.THIS DECISION DOESN’T MATTER TO YOU. BUT WE HAVE TO GO HOME NOW AND WE DON’T HAVE A DAD. AND BECAUSE OF WHAT YOU’VE DECIDED WE’RE NEVER GOING TO KNOW WHO SHOULD BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR HIS DEATH’

These passionate and eloquent words should be embazoned on a banner outside the offices of the DPP. I believe that it is absolutely urgent that some action is taken to turn public anger into concrete political form which people can join in before the moment passes. I’d much rather some other organisation/people would do this but the moment can not be left to pass and in the absence of any other proposal in the name of London Class war ( two people and a dog) we will gather outside the offices of Keir Starmer the DPP next Friday from 12-2pm. I absolutely urge comrades to join us. I listened to talk shows on the radio last night – overwhemingly raging against the police. if we use every medium at our disposal we maybe able to reach out to some of these and get them along. If we fail……..so fucking what -at least we’d fail in trying than by inertia. If you’re coming then please say so it’l encourage us all. If we tolerate the open murder of a working class man by the police without lifting a finger then we truly deserve the dustbin of history. Spread the word; 12 n00n – 2pm next Friday DPP offices.

Source​

 

[detective-boy]

The law is, in it's final analysis, interpreted.

Yes and no. Interpretation is necessary where the meaning is unclear or controversial (such as with a new law where terms are used which are not defined in the statute, or where a new situation has arisen which requires consideration of whether or not it fits within a pre-existing category (e.g. is a new weapon a "made" offensive weapon, or is a motorised skateboard a "mechanically propelled vehicle" or whatever).

But there are large areas of law which are described as "settled" and where there is no debate or controversy at all and so application rather than interpretation is all that is needed. The law of causation in manslaughter cases is one such area - there is no debate about whether or not causation is needed - it is. Full stop. For a case to result in a decision that it did not would be a massive upheaval in the law. Any lawyer would advise you quite definitively on settled areas of law and provide an opinion on chances of success in other areas. I doubt very much whether you would find any lawyer willing to have a crack at arguing that causation is not required in manslaughter.

 

[Pickman's model]

> e19896
& where's this quote from?

 

[xes]

where are the DPP offices and where is this from so I can pass it on

 

[Pickman's model]

One of the problems here, is that very many people were saying very vociferously, that it was a "suspicious death" from the outset.

yes.

who didn't know there had been police contact? the police? they knew. the coroner? if the coroner didn't know there had been police contact it's because the police wanted to cover it up.