G20 Ian Tomlinson conclusion
Discussion
On many occasions we're told by the CPS after a trial has failed to secure a conviction that they had a "duty to put the evidence before a court so that a jury could decide." So why not here? Juries are there to decide about "conflicts of evidence" and do so. The profession of the proposed defendant should be irrelevant but I don't think it was here.
Although this obviously wasn't murder- the PC couldn't have thought that the assault would kill the guy- the video footage is very disturbing.
I'm not having a go at the Police here, but the fact that officers like this one are deployed should be as much of a worry to them as to the rest of us.
Although this obviously wasn't murder- the PC couldn't have thought that the assault would kill the guy- the video footage is very disturbing.
I'm not having a go at the Police here, but the fact that officers like this one are deployed should be as much of a worry to them as to the rest of us.
Lakeland9 said:
On many occasions we're told by the CPS after a trial has failed to secure a conviction that they had a "duty to put the evidence before a court so that a jury could decide."
The CPS are far happier refusing to charge. It's an everyday occurence for Police Officers. (If in doubt, watch the end of the likes of Road Wars )Derek Smith said:
ExChrispy Porker said:
Carnage said:
14-7 said:
Carnage said:
For example, a broken nose or even ribs are usually classed as common assault.
Err, that would be ABH actually even by CPS charging standards.18 months later the trial collapsed the day it opened.
The CPS defended its decision to go ahead with the prosecution despite there being no likelihood of conviction (due to lack of evidence, that old problem that's often difficult to overcome) on the grounds of public interest.
Just to make it clear: the CPS decision has nothing to do with government and Home Office pressure. None whatsoever. As long as we have that clear.
The Chief Constable had lobbied the CPS regarding the charge when he found out they had not followed their own charging guidelines.
I've known them to fail to follow their charging guidelines when refusing to charge but it has only been with police officers as defendants that they have ignored them in pursuing a case. And in all cases the charges failed.
Edited by Derek Smith on Thursday 22 July 19:53
All three officers aquitted, and stern words from the Judge about the CPS asking a jury to effectively pick their favourite expert witnesses.
It often seems to me that there are a great many who would deny the police the protections that they themselves enjoy.
Being innocent until a case is proved beyond reasonable doubt is one part of this.
Abolishing the statute of limitations is another which comes to mind.
All this is on top of a CPS service which, in my fairly extensive experience is only too keen to prosecute officers in cases that wouldn't get through the charge room door if the suspect was a member of the public.
There are even people on another PH forum trying to make capital out of the fact the officer in question has been investigated for assault twice during his career already. I doubt there are very many officers who have not been investigated for assault many times during their careers. I certainly know I was. On a fairly regular basis unfortunately.
Being innocent until a case is proved beyond reasonable doubt is one part of this.
Abolishing the statute of limitations is another which comes to mind.
All this is on top of a CPS service which, in my fairly extensive experience is only too keen to prosecute officers in cases that wouldn't get through the charge room door if the suspect was a member of the public.
There are even people on another PH forum trying to make capital out of the fact the officer in question has been investigated for assault twice during his career already. I doubt there are very many officers who have not been investigated for assault many times during their careers. I certainly know I was. On a fairly regular basis unfortunately.
carinaman said:
Wow in his whole career he has had two complaints. One of which was unsubstantiated. So one complaint. I've got one at the moment for punching a prisoner (along with 15 other officers who also allegedly threw the punch) when I wasn't even in the room. I've also had two other assault complaints both where I was exonerated. One where the Prisoner attacked me on camera and left carried out a sustained 5 minute attack on myself and a colleague during which we suffered injuries and he did not and another where just to "f
k me up " ( his words) another chap I dealt with put in a complaint. Andy Hayman was just being interviewed by Evan Davis on the Today programme.
The 6 months time limit for the assualt charge was mentioned.
Why didn't they just go for the assault charge first?
There's not enough in the amateur video footage to press assault charges?
Wasn't there also some denial from a senior officer about the existence of CCTV footage?
The 6 months time limit for the assualt charge was mentioned.
Why didn't they just go for the assault charge first?
There's not enough in the amateur video footage to press assault charges?
Wasn't there also some denial from a senior officer about the existence of CCTV footage?
carinaman said:
Andy Hayman was just being interviewed by Evan Davis on the Today programme.
The 6 months time limit for the assualt charge was mentioned.
Why didn't they just go for the assault charge first?
There's not enough in the amateur video footage to press assault charges?
Wasn't there also some denial from a senior officer about the existence of CCTV footage?
I thought that they would go with the assault charge, there was never enough to link the death to the officers actions. Anything could have happened in the five minutes. The blow ( of which from reading the reports no physical evidence was seen on the liver) could have happened if Tomlinson had fallen over again after the incident. Proving beyond reasonable doubt for murder / manslaughter is pretty hard. The 6 months time limit for the assualt charge was mentioned.
Why didn't they just go for the assault charge first?
There's not enough in the amateur video footage to press assault charges?
Wasn't there also some denial from a senior officer about the existence of CCTV footage?
Can anyone actually clarify if the other experts did postmortem's on Tomlinson or just based their findings on the notes of DR Patel?
Mr_annie_vxr said:
carinaman said:
Wow in his whole career he has had two complaints. One of which was unsubstantiated. So one complaint. I've got one at the moment for punching a prisoner (along with 15 other officers who also allegedly threw the punch) when I wasn't even in the room. I've also had two other assault complaints both where I was exonerated. One where the Prisoner attacked me on camera and left carried out a sustained 5 minute attack on myself and a colleague during which we suffered injuries and he did not and another where just to "f
k me up " ( his words) another chap I dealt with put in a complaint. heebeegeetee said:
Mr_annie_vxr said:
carinaman said:
Wow in his whole career he has had two complaints. One of which was unsubstantiated. So one complaint. I've got one at the moment for punching a prisoner (along with 15 other officers who also allegedly threw the punch) when I wasn't even in the room. I've also had two other assault complaints both where I was exonerated. One where the Prisoner attacked me on camera and left carried out a sustained 5 minute attack on myself and a colleague during which we suffered injuries and he did not and another where just to "f
k me up " ( his words) another chap I dealt with put in a complaint. Much is being made of the balaclava b
ks.It is part and parcel of the public order outfit. Indeed in many forces is attached. Its is called a flash hood and is there to protect the lower part of the face.
You always wear them with public order helmets. You'll notice every officer in helmets had them on. On public order training if you are caught not wearing it then you get singled out for extra 'fitness'.
carinaman said:
Why didn't they just go for the assault charge first?
Because that would probably have precluded any trial for Manslaughter if the evidence later became available. You cannot (generally) try somebody twice for the same criminal act - the assault is part of both offences.ExChrispy Porker said:
Could they not have reported him for assault, within the 6 months? No real need to charge. There is probably a good reason why not, but I cannot think of it at the moment.
But then the information would still have to be laid before the six-month time limit and then the Court process has started. If the CPS tried delaying the trial for Battery while still trying to find or decide on the evidence to bring Manslaughter charges that would be an abuse of process.Mr_annie_vxr said:
Can anyone actually clarify if the other experts did postmortem's on Tomlinson or just based their findings on the notes of DR Patel?
Yes. The reason they have to rely on Dr Patel is some things are not preserved in the post-mortem unless there is an anticipation that there will be further examinations. At the time Dr Patel carried it out it appears the Coroner (who orders the post-mortem) was not aware of an incident with the Police - it was as per any other post-mortem - so they would not have anticipated further detailed examination. They generally don't keep the fluids in the body.Unfortunately this is where the other pathologists needed to rely on Dr Patel's notes as they were no longer in a position to see it for themselves. Crucially from this Dr Patel's notes read as if there was 3 litres of blood in the chest cavity - something that must have contributed to the other pathologists findings. When he was spoken to again Dr Patel clarified that it was 3 litres of fluid stained by blood. There was no sign at any of the post-mortems of a rupture to cause 3 litres of blood loss (if the first interpretation was taken), and with the fluid not being kept they have to rely on what Dr Patel saw in that respect.
You also have to consider that after a post-mortem all the organs have been removed and returned to the body in a bag, often dissected and all in the chest cavity so again they are reliant on his notes.
From what the CPS have said, in addition to the two further post-mortems they did engage other experts to review the results to try and solve their evidential problem.
carinaman said:
I think Andy Hayman said there are no winners to this.
The job of one officer outweighs any damage done to the standing and reputation of the police in the eyes of the public?
What is your point?The job of one officer outweighs any damage done to the standing and reputation of the police in the eyes of the public?
That some sort of abuse of process should have taken place to ensure a show trial, where the prosecution would have been made to look silly? Because that is what would have happened.
I am not sure I was proposing a show trial or a kangaroo court.
I fail to see how this is good for the police.
Having expressed surprise at a plain clothes officer down on his knees helping some chap on the floor someone whispered 'dereliction of duty' in my ear.
So I am trying to counter this policeman attacking somebody that was no threat whatsoever with a chap looking like Burton's dummy attending to someone down on the ground.
Isn't the behaviour we've seen in the video rather like that many of us associate with bouncers?
With the cuts how many better apples than this guy will find themselves looking for jobs elsewhere or signing on?
I'm attacking the police? I don't know any police?
I fail to see how this is good for the police.
Having expressed surprise at a plain clothes officer down on his knees helping some chap on the floor someone whispered 'dereliction of duty' in my ear.
So I am trying to counter this policeman attacking somebody that was no threat whatsoever with a chap looking like Burton's dummy attending to someone down on the ground.
Isn't the behaviour we've seen in the video rather like that many of us associate with bouncers?
With the cuts how many better apples than this guy will find themselves looking for jobs elsewhere or signing on?
I'm attacking the police? I don't know any police?
Edited by carinaman on Saturday 24th July 11:53
Why is there a 6 months time limit for prosecution for an assault in which someone died and not this:
http://mobile.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=...
Both crimes were caught on camera.
http://mobile.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=...
Both crimes were caught on camera.
Edited by carinaman on Wednesday 28th July 01:09
carinaman said:
Why is there a 6 months time limit for prosecution for an assault in which someone died and not this
The time limit is on the laying of an information before the Court. The trial can then come months or years after (though too long a delay caused by the prosecution would normally see and abuse argument see it thrown out).The limit for the assault comes because the offence would be a Common Assault & Battery (because they're saying they cannot prove the death was a direct consequence of the assault). That is a summary-only offence and as such subject to the 6 month limit for the laying of the information.
ETA: your link also refers to a charge of Dangerous Driving. That is an 'either-way' offence and as such the six month limit for the laying of an information does not apply.
Edited by CharlieTwo on Wednesday 28th July 01:56
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff