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

[detective-boy]

In view of the questions that he has to answer (about the appointment of Patel and related issues), I think there is no doubt whatsoever he shouldn't be in charge of the inquest.

His claims of "lack of expertise in criminal cases" could, if true, explain some of the frankly bizarre decisions he made in relation to the initial PM.

 

[ymu]

He's not said anything at all about that yet.

Matthews has yet to explain why he selected Patel, whose professional conduct had repeatedly been brought into question prior to his appointment.

Last week the General Medical Council in effect banned Patel from carrying out postmortem examinations in suspicious death cases and suspended him for three months after being found guilty of misconduct or "deficient professional performance" in three earlier autopsy cases.

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.

 

[winjer]

More incompetence? I can't quite see why if the police did ask for a special post-mortem he didn't ask them for explanation/evidence, rather than refusing.

In a detailed statement, released at a pre-inquest review hearing, the City of London coroner Paul Matthews said Tomlinson's body was transferred to St Pancras mortuary the day after his death at the G20 protests.

City of London mortuary had been closed since 2002, he said, and the authority had contracted post-mortem services to Camden authority, which ran the St Pancras mortuary. Matthews said Patel "regularly" attended St Pancras mortuary to carry out "routine post-mortems". "So I instructed Dr Patel to carry out the routine post-mortem on Ian Tomlinson's body, and it was fixed for that afternoon," he added.

[...]

Matthews said he refused an early request by City of London police to upgrade the post-mortem to a "special examination" – a form of autopsy conducted in suspicious deaths. This suggests City of London police believed there were suspicious circumstances surrounding Tomlinson's death less than 18 hours after he collapsed.

However, Matthews said: "From my point of view, this [a special post-mortem] appeared to be unnecessary, since there was no material before me that the death was in any way suspicious".

He confirmed he had refused a request from the Independent Police Complaints Commission to have an investigator present during Tomlinson's post-mortem because he had seen no material to suggest the newspaper seller had had contact with police prior to his collapse.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/sep/07/ian-tomlinson-coroner-defends-pathologist-appointment

 

[winjer]

Plot thickens: I'm told the coroner said that after the CoLP request the post mortem was done under s19 'to higher standard of special post mortem'.

 

[ymu]

The guy's all over the place. How he can possibly claim that there were no grounds to treat it as a suspicious death when it occurred in the middle of a summit protest which the police had predicted would turn violent, let alone refusing CoLP and IPCC requests to treat it as such - especially when he is a self-declared non-expert in criminal cases.

 

[detective-boy]

More incompetence? I can't quite see why if the police did ask for a special post-mortem he didn't ask them for explanation/evidence, rather than refusing.

Absolutely. If he was asked for a special PM he has royally fucked up by refusing it ... and I would criticise Cty of London Police / IPCC for accepting his refusal and not jumping up and down about it. Although it is the decision of the Coroner, I have never known of one fail to arrange a special PM having been specifically asked to do so.

It would be interesting to know exactly how dire his "lack of expertise in criminal cases" is ... and if it is as bad as it appears, how the fuck he was left in charge of the City of London area ....

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

Absolutely. If he was asked for a special PM he has royally fucked up by refusing it ... and I would criticise Cty of London Police / IPCC for accepting his refusal and not jumping up and down about it. Although it is the decision of the Coroner, I have never known of one fail to arrange a special PM having been specifically asked to do so.

It would be interesting to know exactly how dire his "lack of expertise in criminal cases" is ... and if it is as bad as it appears, how the fuck he was left in charge of the City of London area ....

so you agree that it was a crooked verdict then?

 

[detective-boy]

so you agree that it was a crooked verdict then?

If you want an answer then I'm afraid you'll have to ask a more specific and understandable question. I am afraid I haven't got ther faintest idea what "it" you are referring to and I have no idea what "verdict" you are referring to. I am unaware of there being any "verdict" in this case at all.

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

If you want an answer then I'm afraid you'll have to ask a more specific and understandable question. I am afraid I haven't got ther faintest idea what "it" you are referring to and I have no idea what "verdict" you are referring to. I am unaware of there being any "verdict" in this case at all.

the verdict that not one police officer is to face charges for killing an innocent man, apparently because a bent pathologist was employed by the coroner, with the agreement of the city of london police. ring any bells?

 

[detective-boy]

the verdict that not one police officer is to face charges for killing an innocent man, apparently because a bent pathologist was employed by the coroner, with the agreement of the city of london police. ring any bells?

That wasn't a "verdict". It was a decision by the CPS.

I have clearly stated my position in relation to the issue on a number of occasions. I have no intention of doing so again. If you are interested you can go and read what I have posted.

 

[butchersapron]

A separate postmortem into the death of Ian Tomlinson carried out on behalf of the policeman filmed hitting him at the G20 protests last year has been withheld from the authorities, it has emerged.

The postmortem, the third on the newspaper seller's body, was jointly conducted by the forensic pathologist Ben Swift at the request of lawyers for PC Simon Harwood, who is shown striking Tomlinson in a video revealed by the Guardian.

Harwood's lawyers have withheld Swift's report from the Crown Prosecution Service and the Independent Police Commission, citing legal privilege, according to the BBC.

The CPS confirmed it had not been handed a copy of Swift's report by Ben Swift as it was defence material, so the CPS was "not entitled to see it".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/sep/08/ian-tomlinson-postmortem-withheld-coroner

 

[Corax]

That wasn't a "verdict". It was a decision by the CPS.

Are you perhaps being a wee bit pedantic db?

verdict [ˈvɜːdɪkt]
n
1. (Law) the findings of a jury on the issues of fact submitted to it for examination and trial; judgment
2. any decision, judgment, or conclusion

 

[detective-boy]

Are you perhaps being a wee bit pedantic db?

In relation to deciding how to answer the question, no. In view of the continuing efforts of posters to derail threads in which I am involved I have to be very careful to make sure that I know exactly what is being asked. In the context of the short original question, I did not understand what was being referred to and so asked for clarification.

If the question had made clear that it was the CPS decision on the case to which reference was being made, I would not have made any mention of the fact that they had used the word "verdict" instead of decision.

 

[detective-boy]

In relation to the latest disclosure that the details of the post-mortem carried out on behalf of the defence has not been disclosed to the prosecution, be careful what you wish for. It is usually the case that anything done by, or for, the defence is not disclosed to the prosecution and that has led to lots of miscarriages of justice (primarily in my experience in relation to mental health issues where manslaughter is being argued as an alternative to murder on the basis of mental illness - the worst case I was personally involved in had the defence approach eight different forensic psychiatrists before they found one who said what they wanted and disagreed with the two prosecution experts ... with the jury never being told that there were another seven who agreed too!).

Any precedent set in this case is likely to be applied in other, non-police cases ... and that would, I think, be a serious backward step in our system of criminal justice.

 

[butchersapron]

Who said they're wishing for anything? Stop misrepresenting.

 

[detective-boy]

Who said they're wishing for anything? Stop misrepresenting.

Please stop posting content-free rubbish (aka trolling) in a clear attempt to precipitate the derailing of this thread and then blaming me for doing so.

 

[tarannau]

Hold on, you're getting precious because someone's called you on misrepresenting the thread? I'd advise you not to make the misrepresentative statements and oversimplistic, surplus strawmen in the first place.

Who did say they were wishing for some new coroner regulations then? Why use such a loaded, leading phrase in the first place?

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

Absolutely. If he was asked for a special PM he has royally fucked up by refusing it ... and I would criticise Cty of London Police / IPCC for accepting his refusal and not jumping up and down about it. Although it is the decision of the Coroner, I have never known of one fail to arrange a special PM having been specifically asked to do so.

It would be interesting to know exactly how dire his "lack of expertise in criminal cases" is ... and if it is as bad as it appears, how the fuck he was left in charge of the City of London area ....

so you agree that it was a crooked decision then?

 

[Barking_Mad]

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 he'd have been seen to have no contact with a policeman but simply tripped over the kerb and fall to the ground, would you now be saying, "the trip over the kerb cannot be shown to have caused his death."

?

 

[winjer]

Absolutely. If he was asked for a special PM he has royally fucked up by refusing it ... and I would criticise Cty of London Police / IPCC for accepting his refusal and not jumping up and down about it. Although it is the decision of the Coroner, I have never known of one fail to arrange a special PM having been specifically asked to do so.

Giving him the benefit of the doubt, he may have taken the view that he couldn't arrange a s20 examination, as mentioned at 7.28 here:
http://www.the-shipman-inquiry.org.uk/tr_page.asp?ID=127

 

[detective-boy]

so you agree that it was a crooked decision then?

I have repeatedly posted what I think of the decision. It is there for you to read if you are genuinely interested ... which I doubt you actually are. Now please stop attempting to derail this thread, no doubt intending to blame me if it happens.

 

[detective-boy]

If he'd have been seen to have no contact with a policeman but simply tripped over the kerb and fall to the ground, would you now be saying, "the trip over the kerb cannot be shown to have caused his death."

?

If the pathology evidence was the same, yes. There would still be exactly the same issue over what the actual cause of death was and unless you could demonstrate it was internal bleeding, caused by awkwardly hitting the ground, you couldn't give it as the cause of death where there were alternative causes which (a) could be proven to exist and (b) could have led to death in and of themselves.

Why wouldn't I?

 

[detective-boy]

Giving him the benefit of the doubt, he may have taken the view that he couldn't arrange a s20 examination, as mentioned at 7.28 here:
http://www.the-shipman-inquiry.org.uk/tr_page.asp?ID=127

As paragraph 7.27 makes clear, Coroners order special post-mortems all the time, whether they have decided to hold an inquest or not. He really does appear to have fucked up big time.

And the practical situations has changed beyond all recognition since the Coroners Act 1988 - police homicide / unexplained death investigation has been professionalised massively and if there is the slightest suggestion that there may be any criminal causation then a special PM is ordered. The modern "special PM" is also now far more than simply an ordinary PM and some samples sent off for tests, involving specialist police crime scene examiners, an exhibits officer, photographers and video operators and even, if necessary, specialist forensic scientists. The idea is that if the cause of death is unknown and it may yet turn out to be suspicious it is treated as such until the contrary is decided ... if samples are taken, etc. that it turns out aren't needed they can be thrown away and all that has happened is that we have wasted a few quid and some officers time ... whereas if they are not, and t turns out it was probably murder there is no going back ... (as is patently obvious from this case)

 

[ymu]

If the pathology evidence was the same, yes. There would still be exactly the same issue over what the actual cause of death was and unless you could demonstrate it was internal bleeding, caused by awkwardly hitting the ground, you couldn't give it as the cause of death where there were alternative causes which (a) could be proven to exist and (b) could have led to death in and of themselves.

Why wouldn't I?

No reason not to charge for ABH though, is there? The competent pathologist has been very clear on this point.

But a direct challenge to the CPS also emerged last night from Dr Nat Cary, the second forensic pathologist who examined Tomlinson's body. He told the Guardian prosecutors made a factual error in dismissing a charge of actual bodily harm.

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."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jul/22/ian-tomlinson-g20-cps-ruling?showallcomments=true

 

[detective-boy]

No reason not to charge for ABH though, is there? The competent pathologist has been very clear on this point.

This is now the fourth thread on which I have pointed out that I have no intention of ever engaging directly with you again. So please stop quoting my posts and making inaccurate comments designed to goad me into a response which you can then use to derail the thread and blame me, as you have done on numerous previous occasions.

You are seriously obsessed and need help.

Leave me alone and take your cross-thread trolling somewhere else.

 

[cesare]

She's allowed to have a point of view even if you don't like it d-b. And if you don't like it and don't want to talk to her; then don't answer or put her on ignore or something.

 

[ymu]

Cheers ces.

I'll make a point on a thread whenever I like. If the individual posters whose posts I am responding to don't/can't respond to what I say, that's entirely up to them, but they don't get to choose who posts what. That's not how a forum works.

 

[pk]

This is now the fourth thread on which I have pointed out that I have no intention of ever engaging directly with you again. So please stop quoting my posts and making inaccurate comments designed to goad me into a response which you can then use to derail the thread and blame me, as you have done on numerous previous occasions.

You are seriously obsessed and need help.

Leave me alone and take your cross-thread trolling somewhere else.

Oh grow up you twat. If you can't handle it here - fuck off somewhere else.

 

[detective-boy]

Oh grow up you twat. If you can't handle it here - fuck off somewhere else.

Please stop derailing this thread with content-free, off-topic posts.

 

[pk]

Please stop derailing this thread with content-free, off-topic posts.

Please stop embarrassing yourself, you impotent tragic little man.