PC Simon Harwood 'not guilty' Options

[JeffG]

The result of too much PFI & flogging off of private enterprise what should be done by the state.

I didn't know they had out-sourced the crown court system. To G4S maybe?

[Andy Capp]

That is the question. Causation - the relationship between the conduct and the result. If there is doubt, then the jury were right to acquit. Whether or not a charge of assault could have been proven is another matter.

The problem with the word 'doubt', is that it is subjective. It could be used to get most people off. Three doctors confirmed internal bleeding that the first doctor missed. This, I think, would be enough to dismiss the first doctors testimony as discredited. Like I said, I don't know if the first doctors evidence was presented to the court.

[Newbelly]

[quote name='Andy Capp' post='66822' date='Jul 20 2012, 04:46 PM']
The problem with the word 'doubt', is that it is subjective.
[\quote]

That's why you have 12 on a jury.

[Jayjay]

In cases that I have sat in on, the Jury is guided to the verdict by the summing up of the judge and the way he interprets the law.

[GMR]

I wonder what the jury saw that enabled them to find PC Simon Harwood not guilty of manslaughter, despite his aggressive handling of Ian Tomlinson and a previous verdict that Ian Tomlinson was unlawfully killed?

It is obvious by what was disclosed after the trial that he has a disciplinary problem and is also somebody who can't control his temper. The next step is a police enquiry and a private prosecution.

He should have been found quilty by the jury and would have if they knew his record.

[spartacus]

The guy only died because his abused liver ruptured. Could have gone any time. The shove the PC gave him was not sufficient to cause harm to majority of people and I believe that's how it was delivered.
I notice 'the loving family' he was from and who are now probably after justice (and compensation) were happy for him to be living in a hostel for the homeless...


Still... shows a jury can be fooled when the witnesses and defendant are well coached.

[Newbelly]

He should have been found quilty by the jury and would have if they knew his record.

The issue was causation not intent. Perhaps this was why they were kept from knowing.

[Newbelly]

The guy only died because his abused liver ruptured. Could have gone any time. The shove the PC gave him was not sufficient to cause harm to majority of people and I believe that's how it was delivered.
I notice 'the loving family' he was from and who are now probably after justice (and compensation) were happy for him to be living in a hostel for the homeless...

I have some sympathy with this view; the problem with it is that a Coroner's Court decided he was unlawfully killed...

[Andy Capp]

The problem with the word 'doubt', is that it is subjective.

That's why you have 12 on a jury.

The point I make is that it is rarely the case that something is absolute.


If Mr Tomlinson was fit, then he would have been unlicky to have come to any harm, BUT it is also the case that when someone attacks someone else, there is the possibility that you will greatly harm them. In this case, Mr Tomlinson was not prepared to be hit as he had his back to the policeman and his hands in his pockets. Under these circumstances, I believe it is reckless to attack someone who poses no danger. A fit person could be hit and pushed to the floor and die in such circumstances.

You cannot convict someone of manslaughter because of their previous record, but you can convict a person of involuntary manslaughter if you perform an illegal act (the the strike and push) from which that person dies. I have no doubt that had the policeman not done what he had done, Mr Tomlinson would have walked 'home' unharmed.

I will admit that this case is on the very edge of reason.

[Penelope]

That's why you have 12 on a jury.
The point I make, is that it is rarely the case that something is absolute.


If Mr Tomlinson was fit, then he would have been unlicky to have come to any harm, BUT it is also the case that when someone attacks someone else, there is the possibility that you will greatly harm them. In this case, Mr Tomlinson was not prepared to be hit as he had his back to the policeman and his hands in his pockets. Under these circumstances, I believe it is reckless to attack someone who poses no danger. A fit person could easily be hit and pushed to the floor and die in such circumstances.

You cannot convict someone of manslaughter because of their previous record, but you can convict a person of involuntary manslaughter if you perform an illegal act (the the strike and push) from which that person dies. I have no doubt that had the policeman not done what he had done, Mr Tomlinson would have walked 'home' unharmed.

And if you had walked up behind a policeman and shoved him forcibly to the ground causing an Injury, do you honestly believe you would be walking around free today?

[Newbelly]

That's why you have 12 on a jury.
The point I make is that it is rarely the case that something is absolute.


If Mr Tomlinson was fit, then he would have been unlicky to have come to any harm, BUT it is also the case that when someone attacks someone else, there is the possibility that you will greatly harm them. In this case, Mr Tomlinson was not prepared to be hit as he had his back to the policeman and his hands in his pockets. Under these circumstances, I believe it is reckless to attack someone who poses no danger. A fit person could be hit and pushed to the floor and die in such circumstances.

You cannot convict someone of manslaughter because of their previous record, but you can convict a person of involuntary manslaughter if you perform an illegal act (the the strike and push) from which that person dies. I have no doubt that had the policeman not done what he had done, Mr Tomlinson would have walked 'home' unharmed.

I will admit that this case is on the very edge of reason.

To play devil's advocate, and to differentiate, in a public order situation it is not illegal or even unreasonable for a police officer to push a member of the public who is refusing to obey instructions to move on.

If Mr Tomlinson had died from a blow from a baton (when he was posing no threat to the officer) then I think things may have been different. I think the baton strike was to his legs though.

[On the edge]

The guy only died because his abused liver ruptured. Could have gone any time. The shove the PC gave him was not sufficient to cause harm to majority of people and I believe that's how it was delivered.
I notice 'the loving family' he was from and who are now probably after justice (and compensation) were happy for him to be living in a hostel for the homeless...


Still... shows a jury can be fooled when the witnesses and defendant are well coached.

Have some sympathy with this response, but fact remains we had an out of control copper; who had previously shown on several occasions that he can't keep his temper in stressful situations. Do we really want coppers like that? Remember, when not doing this sort of thing, they are driving cars at high speed etc. I think not. Both Surrey and Metropolitan Force management have a lot of questions to answer. Were they in old parlance 'accessories after the fact'?

[Simon Kirby]

And if you had walked up behind a policeman and shoved him forcibly to the ground causing an Injury, do you honestly believe you would be walking around free today?

That's not a fair comparison. We - society - ask the police to put themselves in harm's way to protect us, and it follows that an assault on a police officer is an assault on society and that can never be tolerated. A policeman on crowd-control losing self-control in the frustration of the moment in the middle of a stressful and dangerous day, well it's not ideal, but officers are human and no matter how much you train you actually need a pugnacious streak to do the job we ask of them, so sometimes it'll happen.

[Newbelly]

Both Surrey and Metropolitan Force management have a lot of questions to answer.

Well the MPS certainly does. If the officer retired in 2001 "on grounds of ill-health", how is it that just a few years later he is back in the Territorial Support Group - a role that requires a particuarly good level of fitness. This may suggest that his ill-health was perhaps psychological and not physical - in which case there is even more of a question perhaps...

[Jayjay]

That's not a fair comparison. We - society - ask the police to put themselves in harm's way to protect us, and it follows that an assault on a police officer is an assault on society and that can never be tolerated. A policeman on crowd-control losing self-control in the frustration of the moment in the middle of a stressful and dangerous day, well it's not ideal, but officers are human and no matter how much you train you actually need a pugnacious streak to do the job we ask of them, so sometimes it'll happen.

Would you use same arguement for the officers in the Rodney King case? The officers in that case were acquited too.

[On the edge]

Once is forgivable, twice an error but more than that a habit. Yes we do expect a lot from our Police- thats why they are paid and trained well. The last incidents of a similar nature in the armed forces were certainly not excused and the men involved had exemplary records. He may well haved a condition that does mean he can't cope with this sort of stress - but then we should have expected the Police monitoring processes to have weeded him out, after the third incident at least!

[Roost]

Yeah cos the two cases are just soooo similar.....

Grip. Get. A.

[Andy Capp]

To play devil's advocate, and to differentiate, in a public order situation it is not illegal or even unreasonable for a police officer to push a member of the public who is refusing to obey instructions to move on.

If Mr Tomlinson had died from a blow from a baton (when he was posing no threat to the officer) then I think things may have been different. I think the baton strike was to his legs though.

That is fair comment, but watching the footage, I'd say a baton strike and a hefty push were unnecessary. Tomlinson was shuffling along rather reluctantly, when he paused, and then Harwood attacked him.

I would agree with your summary, but I would also counter that, had Tomlinson stood there effin and blinding at Harwood, while ignoring the police instruction to move, then I could see greater justification for Harwood's actions. Once Tomlinson hit the floor, no policeman checked his welfare, and they all stopped moving forward, suggesting that they had no immediate ambition to disperse or move the crowd on. Tomlinson's actions, while reluctant, weren't belligerent, so for that reason I don't think Harwood's attack was reasonable.

The crux of the matter is, if Harwood's attack was legal, then it wasn't manslaughter. My view is that the attack wasn't legal.

[Simon Kirby]

Would you use same arguement for the officers in the Rodney King case?

I don't know, probably not, I don't know much about Rodney King, and America is a whole other country with quite different issues.

[Simon Kirby]

*double post, sorry*