Welcome to Newburytoday.co.uk’s message boards where you can have your say and share your views on any number of issues.
Anyone can read messages, but only registered users can post messages, reply to messages or create new topics. As part of the free and simple registration, you will be asked to read and conform to the house rules.
To register, click here ……Enjoy the debate. Newbury Today Forum > Categories > Random Rants
|
|
PC Simon Harwood 'not guilty' |
|
|
|
Jul 19 2012, 10:27 PM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 865
Joined: 8-December 11
From: Not Here anymore!
Member No.: 8,392
|
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Jul 19 2012, 11:20 PM) 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? Since when has anyone expected any form of justice where bringing the police to book has been concerned?w
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 20 2012, 07:50 AM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 389
Joined: 23-March 12
Member No.: 8,669
|
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Jul 19 2012, 11:20 PM) 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? Well, the answer to your question is "the whole evidence" - on which they based their decision, rather than what they read in a newspaper. I think many are surprised at his acquittal, but we do not know how much the victim's self-inflicted illness played in his sad demise, nor which witnesses were convincing in their evidence and which were not. Two other points I thought about when I saw the news last night. 1. The last time I was at Southwark CC, I noticed how middle class the jury looked. Parts of London previously considered rough have changed hugely in the last couple of decades and become rather "gentrified". That changes the composition of a jury and their attitude to the police. 2. With the weekly diet of cop shows, there has been a subtle PR campaign taking place by the police, courtesy of the many TV channels that need cheap-to-make programming. Young, brave, polite, dedicated cops are shown protecting us from nasty, violent, foul-mouthed yobs. Only a very few occupations get this continual, free, good PR! What surprised me about the history of the accused, was the incompetence of the police internal disciplinary system and the way one is able to be circumvent disciplinary matters by moving around.
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 20 2012, 08:29 AM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 389
Joined: 23-March 12
Member No.: 8,669
|
QUOTE (NORTHENDER @ Jul 20 2012, 09:22 AM) ... the jury does not know of the history of the accused. PC Harwood had been disciplined some eight times I think for all-sorts of offences,violence being one of them. I think the jury's should be told myself. "Bad character" in respect of previous similar behaviour, can be put to the jury with the permission of the judge. I do not know what was allowed in this case.
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 20 2012, 09:01 AM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 389
Joined: 23-March 12
Member No.: 8,669
|
QUOTE (Gooner72 @ Jul 20 2012, 09:43 AM) In terms of previous convictions (bad character evidence) the history of the defendant is not disclosed until post verdict to ensure a fair trial. As stated in some cases this can be introduced but only with the consent of the trial judge. To be clear, evidence of bad character is not limited to previous convictions. CJA 2003 goes a lot further than this on what juries may hear about the defendant before they consider their verdict.
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 20 2012, 09:13 AM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 389
Joined: 23-March 12
Member No.: 8,669
|
QUOTE (NORTHENDER @ Jul 20 2012, 10:06 AM) I can understand things not being put before the jury if they were from years before and no violence was involved, but his past offences, and all of them fairly bad, all took place in a relatively short time IE, his police career. I agree. In the trial of a police officer, I think the Prosecution would be expecting to be able to introduce his disciplinary record!
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 20 2012, 09:48 AM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 6,056
Joined: 14-May 09
From: Bouvetøya
Member No.: 51
|
QUOTE (Penelope @ Jul 19 2012, 11:50 PM) The old Masonic brown envelope job. Posting from experience?
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 20 2012, 10:16 AM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 865
Joined: 8-December 11
From: Not Here anymore!
Member No.: 8,392
|
QUOTE (dannyboy @ Jul 20 2012, 10:48 AM) Posting from experience? No, from a phone (thought we had established that?)
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 20 2012, 11:02 AM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 3,762
Joined: 14-May 09
Member No.: 56
|
QUOTE (Nothing Much @ Jul 20 2012, 11:27 AM) I have done jury service twice and it is a total bore waiting to be "an Upstanding " member of the public. I did it once (Reading Crown Court) and found it a really interesting experience.
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 20 2012, 11:49 AM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 6,056
Joined: 14-May 09
From: Bouvetøya
Member No.: 51
|
QUOTE (NORTHENDER @ Jul 20 2012, 12:31 PM) Two or maybe three years ago I received a summons to appear as a jury member on a certain date. I was quite looking forward to it. A couple of days before the due date I received another letter saying sorry I would not be needed as the town I live in no longer had a crown court and had not done so for three years. It made me smile really. The result of too much PFI & flogging off of private enterprise what should be done by the state.
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 20 2012, 02:01 PM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 389
Joined: 23-March 12
Member No.: 8,669
|
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Jul 20 2012, 01:04 PM) Did the attack cause the death? One doctor didn't think so, but I'm not sure that doctor's evidence was presented to the court. The doctor's view was also in a minority. I think there is mitigation in that Mr Tomlinson's health was not good at the time of the incident and PC Simon Harwood couldn't have known that, but I don't see that as a materially important unless the attack could be proven to be reasonable. 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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
|
|