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

[Paulie Tandoori]

No. But we could agree that the cops got away with assaulting someone on camera and got off.


And, if you could actually bother to read the detail of what I'd posted, we could agree that (a) the failure to lay other, summary-only charges within the limitation period has not been properly explained by the CPS (my guess is that theye di NOT deliberately consider it at the six-month stage but that they forgot about that aspect until they later found out they had nothing else and went "Oh fuck ..." when the subject of common assault came up ... and (b) there is no reason in law why an ABH charge could not / should not be laid * and, personally, I would be pushing for a judicial review of the CPS decision not to do so because it has not be properly explained by the CPS and it is entirely based on their policy (i.e. Charging Standards).

* : Their report explains why an ABH charge based on the internal bleeding injury could not be pursued (for the same causation reasons as manslaughter could not - it is the same injury being considered) ... but it was silent on whether they considered an ABH charge based on the baton bruising ... which they only mentioned as a potential common assault charge ... which was outside the limitation period. In subsequent reports it appears they have confirmed that they applied their Charging Standards. They could, in the circumstances, have ignored their policy. In view of the fact that if they did not the officer, who they clearly stated they believed had used unlawful force, would avoid any criminal charge I believe they should have ignored their policy and taken whatever shit the defence threw at them.

i'd like to see the fucker arrested late on a friday night in somewhere like hull and given his own guided tour of the cell-block tbf.

if we're getting all peter pan and that.....

 

[Brainaddict]

And as a bit of light relief: Police call in Ghostbusters after fears of poltergeist violence

 

[winjer]

Further proof that so long as no-one dies, cops sometimes do get charged:

A Met police officer has been charged with assault after a teenage boy was pushed through a glass window. Pc Marcus Ballard, 29, faces two counts of common assault over the incident in Bromley, south London, on 27 February. [...] The teenager, who was not injured, was arrested for assaulting police but no charges were brought. The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) launched an inquiry after colleagues reported concerns to anti-corruption officers after the incident.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-11063784

 

[ymu]

There's been a few cases recently of coppers reporting their own. Is this a new trend, or are the press just reporting it more because police violence is a hot topic right now?

 

[Pickman's model]

Today Dr Patel was found to have failed to identify marks on a five-year-old girl which suggested she had been violently attacked before her death.

The panel said Dr Patel carried out only a “cursory” examination of Annastacia Williams in September 2002.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/stand...-patel-irresponsible-on-other-post-mortems.do

 

[winjer]

"However the pathologist escaped charges after his legal team claimed it would be “unfair” to defend the allegations as he had lost his case files — the same technicality on which he escaped charges in the case of “Camden Ripper” victim Sally White"

Fucksakes.

 

[laptop]

[Meanwhile, a photographer's impressions of the events ]

 

[Streathamite]

Urban75 should not be a forum for pigs to join anyway... since Paddick they've all been cunts, true to type.

That is undemocratic, and unreasonable. Given that, after all, you yourself have stated a belief that 'we will always need a police force', then past and present police officers should have the right to participate in fora of open debate as much as the next man - whatever format those fora may take.

 

[Onket]

Spot the mature poster there, and the cunt that needs to grow the fuck up.

 

[SpookyFrank]

if so than that is - surely - a scandal. I think it's the courts (MoJ) and not the police in charge of PMs (and who do them), tho'.

The courts and the police are the same thing. For evidence of this, read this very thread.

 

[Pickman's model]

The courts and the police are the same thing. For evidence of this, read this very thread.

you seem to be living in the past, when there were police courts. the courts and the police are different things, although the conflation to which you've fallen victim is not uncommon.

 

[Fedayn]

Top link from the BBC, The bottom link from The New Statesman.

G20 pathologist guilty of misconduct

G20 pathologist found guilty by GMC

 

[DotCommunist]

Although the vastly more important matter of the cricket being fixed leads- wankers

 

[Streathamite]

The courts and the police are the same thing. For evidence of this, read this very thread.

no, they are not, - not at all. Some courts (i.e. judges presiding) may have agendas which coincide with those of the cops behind a given prosecution, but to say "The courts and the police are the same thing" is as far from the truth as we are from Malibu beach right now.
e2a; proof? The biggest and most vitriolic critics of the legal profession (judges and barristers) are invariably coppers!

 

[ymu]

It ruled he acted in a way liable to bring the profession into disrepute when he changed the woman's cause of death.

In an examination in January, he decided she had died from a blood clot in the coronary arteries.

But a month later he changed that to a brain haemorrhage after a second post-mortem by another pathologist.

He told an inquest into the woman's death he made the changes "to satisfy the family".

He changed Tomlinson's PM report too - "abdominal fluid blood" to "abdominal fluid with blood".

 

[ymu]

During Tuesday's hearing, panel chairman Richard Davies said: "The panel is not satisfied that there is no risk of the relevant conduct being repeated."

He said pathologists "must not set aside their professional judgement for any of the parties involved during or after a post-mortem examination for reasons of expediency or anything else".

Damn right.

 

[DexterTCN]

Good. About fucking time. Casts a further dark shadow over the decision not to prosecute the police.

 

[Quartz]

Top link from the BBC, The bottom link from The New Statesman.

G20 pathologist guilty of misconduct

G20 pathologist found guilty by GMC

Any chance this will lead to the decision to not prosecute being reviewed?

 

[winjer]

Good. About fucking time. Casts a further dark shadow over the decision not to prosecute the police.

It's doesn't, it reinforces it. Patel fucked up the first post mortem, the others depend on him.

 

[Corax]

Don't worry, I'm sure the decision will be reconsidered. I've written to my local MP you see. That'll do it.

*drums fingers*

Well, he took his sweet time about it, but the response isn't the boilerplate brush-off that I was expecting tbh:

"Having followed the handling of the case personally I share your concerns about the nature of the investigation into Mr Tomlinson's death. Dr Freddy Patel who carried out the initial postmortem has indeed been discredited a number of times. Given that two further forensic pathologists who examined Mr Tomlinson came to the conclusion that he died of natural <sic - I think this is meant to be 'internal'> bleeding, as opposed to a heart attack as Dr Patel concluded, it seems untoward that the CPS ended the matter by stating that there was a conflict of forensic opinion.

Although I will not predict what the outcome of a full prosecution of PC Simon Hayward <sic - this should be 'Harwood'> might have been, I am convinced that the investigation should not have been terminated on the testimony of a pathologist who is currently under investigation by the GMC.

I have written on your behalf to Rt Hon Nick Herbert MP, Minister of State at the Home Office with responsibility for police accountability, to ask whether the Home Office is prepared to make an intervention to ensure that there is a properly conducted inquest into Mr Tomlinson's death. I believe that this is crucila for the sake of Mr Tomlinson's family and for the reputation of the police force in the UK.

I enclose a copy of my letter for your information and will forward you the Minister's response as soon as possible."


And the enclosed letter to Nick Herbert:

"I am writing to you in your capacity as Minister with responsibility for police accountability on behalf of a number of constituents who have contacted me on the subject of Ian Tomlinson's death at the G20 protests. I enclose an example of their correspondence for your information.

As you will be aware Dr Freddy Patel who conducted the initial post mortem on Mr Tomlinson's body is currently under investigation by the GMC for several mishandled post mortems. Two further forensic pathologists who examined Mr Tomlinson reached a very different conclusion to Mr Patel's diagnosis of a heart attack, namely that Mr Tomlinson died of natural bleeding <sic - 'internal bleeding' surely same as before, is this dodgy dictation software or something?>. The impartiality of the inquest has to be questioned following BBC allegations that the MET were involved with the appointment of Dr Patel <sic - it was City of London police, but close enough >. In any case it seems that Paul Matthews the CPS coroner has decided that PC Simon Hayward <sic - 'Harwood'... > should not be prosecuted on the basis of some potentially very insecure evidence.

It is crucial for the sake of Mr Tomlinson's family and for the reputation of the police force in the UK that a proper inquest is conducted into this matter. I would greatly appreciate it if you could indicate for my constituents whether the Home Office is willing to take steps to make sure that this investigation is carried out with all due integrity."



Leaving aside the needlessly sloppy errors and the fact that he's ignored the apparent abuse of process of delaying the decision past the statute of limitation for common assault, it's actually a better response than I was expecting.

Not that anything will actually come of it of course.

 

[winjer]

Given that two further forensic pathologists who examined Mr Tomlinson came to the conclusion that he died of natural [/I]<sic - I think this is meant to be 'internal'> bleeding

The Guardian made the same error, so perhaps he c&ped?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/aug/19/ian-tomlinson-pathologist-not-qualified (corrected)
http://projectsheffield.wordpress.c...alified-to-be-on-home-office-list-claims-bbc/ (orig)

 

[Corax]

The Guardian made the same error, so perhaps he c&ped?



http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/aug/19/ian-tomlinson-pathologist-not-qualified (corrected)
http://projectsheffield.wordpress.c...alified-to-be-on-home-office-list-claims-bbc/ (orig)

Good sleuthing!

 

[winjer]

Thanks, I knew already because I gave them the correction.

 

[ska invita]

So Patel the pathologist (to recap) who was already under investigation for corruption in autopsies, but was given the task of doing the Tomlinson case, and whose findings were at the heart of allowing there to be no conviction, has finally been tried for his malpractice.

the verdict: guilty (as noted above)

now what would you expect to happen - a lynching in the media? outrage at the corruption in police trials? imprisonment for patel? a fine for patel? never allowed to practice again?
none of the above - hes been banned from practicing for 3 months. 3 months.
http://www.channel4.com/news/articl...ddie+patel+suspended+for+three+months/3759677

 

[detective-boy]

So Patel the pathologist (to recap) who was already under investigation for corruption in autopsies...

Please link to where there is any report of any allegation or investigation of his corruption (as opposed to incompetence).

 

[Mr.Bishie]

Same old, same old. He was bent. The OB exploited that fact.

The law? Fuck it.

 

[Pickman's model]

Please link to where there is any report of any allegation or investigation of his corruption (as opposed to incompetence).

ska invita just alleged he's corrupt: no need for an external link.

 

[two sheds]

I'd say the initial police response to Tomlinson's death was pretty bloody corrupt, and appointing a tame pathologist was part of that response.

If a member of the public lashed out at someone with a baseball bat unprovoked and the victim died, i don't think the police would be so ready to say 'ah well he was on his way out anyway'. I'm not sure why it should make any difference really. I don't see why it is a defence that they were ill anyway and you just didn't know. Tough, you shouldn't go round hitting people unprovoked. It's a bit like the old defence 'ah well melud i was pissed and didn't know what i was doing'

 

[detective-boy]

If a member of the public lashed out at someone with a baseball bat unprovoked and the victim died, i don't think the police would be so ready to say 'ah well he was on his way out anyway'. I'm not sure why it should make any difference really. I don't see why it is a defence that they were ill anyway and you just didn't know.

You entirely fail to understand the nature of the evidential problem here. It is not that "he was dying anyway" it is that the force used cannot be shown to have caused his death. If, in your example, the baseball bat made glancing contact, causing a bruise and the victim wandered off and collapsed and died a few minutes later it would have to be shown that the attack with the baseball bat caused the death in some way.

Here the issue is that the cause of death is not even known for sure - Patel concluded it was heart disease but two other pathologists concluded it was internal bleeding which was caused by the fall caused by the unlawful use of force. Unfortunately in reaching their conclusion they inevitably rely upon an observation of Patel's which he says they have misinterpreted ... and which therefore will never be proveable beyond reasonable doubt.

As an aside I have never seen any mention of an alternative approach to manslaughter in this case, namely that the stress of the unlawful force being used on him brought on the heart attack - a legitimate causation route that has been used in other cases (such as those where burglars visit an elderly person who dies minutes later from a heart attack brought on by the stress). This would be a valid question for those who wish to pursue the matter to raise with the CPS ... but for that to succeed the prosecution would have to adduce evidence which showed that the heart attack was the cause of death ... and that would mean the two later pathologists changing their opinion based on acceptance of Patel's clarification of his observations ... which I suspect they will never do unless Hell freezes over ...

 

[winjer]

The coroner presiding over the inquest into the death of Ian Tomlinson has officially requested that a senior judicial figure take over the case, on the eve of formal proceedings.

The City of London coroner Paul Matthews will tomorrow begin a pre-inquest review – a proceeding that will set out the scope of the judicial investigation into Tomlinson's death.

However the Guardian understands that Matthews, who controversially appointed the pathologist Dr Freddy Patel to conduct the first postmortem into the newspaper vendor's death, has written to ministers raising doubts about his own lack of expertise in criminal cases.

The justice secretary, Ken Clarke, is considering the request, which has the support of Tomlinson's family.

[...]

However Matthews is not thought to have referred to the Patel case when listing the reasons why a "retired or serving judge" should preside over the inquest in his place.

His letter to the Ministry of Justice is understood to have focused instead on his own lack of expertise in criminal cases, as well as the wider implications of the inquest for "police and police behaviour".

Writing that the case would be long and complex, Matthews said that the matter was of national rather than local importance. He described himself as a part-time coroner with other professional obligations.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/sep/06/ian-tomlinson-coroner-inquest