Hardwood found not guilty
Discussion
can someone explain how paying money to a greedy family (and their lawyers) is justice. That money comes from you and me.
Did Tomlinson support this family that they needed a payout to put them in position they were?
If a public service does wrong then they should fess up and not repeat.
No public money should be squandered.
Did Tomlinson support this family that they needed a payout to put them in position they were?
If a public service does wrong then they should fess up and not repeat.
No public money should be squandered.
NicD said:
can someone explain how paying money to a greedy family (and their lawyers) is justice. That money comes from you and me.
Did Tomlinson support this family that they needed a payout to put them in position they were?
If a public service does wrong then they should fess up and not repeat.
No public money should be squandered.
This is a family who lost someone they loved. Why do you need to attack them?Did Tomlinson support this family that they needed a payout to put them in position they were?
If a public service does wrong then they should fess up and not repeat.
No public money should be squandered.
Sure, he wasn't living the most productive life he could, due to the fact he was an alcoholic, but where do you want to draw the line beyond which human life is worthless and thugs like Harwood are free to kill with impunity?
Maybe one day you'll end up on the streets due to mental illness, or addiction. Maybe you'll be estranged from your family. Perhaps your children will shun you. If so I hope you find some people more compassionate than yourself.
Justice is scales that need to balance.
When Tomlinson was killed a weight was placed on one side.
The met need to balance the scales.
The only way to do that these days is with money.
I get annoyed at the principle and concept of public money being used for compensation. But, I can see an alternative way of balancing the scales.
When Tomlinson was killed a weight was placed on one side.
The met need to balance the scales.
The only way to do that these days is with money.
I get annoyed at the principle and concept of public money being used for compensation. But, I can see an alternative way of balancing the scales.
The court case was a trial by jury.
You may not like the result, but that's just the way it goes.
You can't keep trying the same person for the same crime time and time again until you get a result the media likes.
Does anyone recall if any if the court case was private, or do we have access to everything the jury saw?
You may not like the result, but that's just the way it goes.
You can't keep trying the same person for the same crime time and time again until you get a result the media likes.
Does anyone recall if any if the court case was private, or do we have access to everything the jury saw?
Rovinghawk said:
Snowboy said:
The met need to balance the scales.
The only way to do that these days is with money.
The apology was worthwhile, too.The only way to do that these days is with money.
I've always considered 'official' apologies like this to be pretty much worthless. Just a political exercise.
But I've never been on the receiving end of one so perhaps they do mean something to some people.
The person making the apology wasn't there, had no impact on the actions of the day, and was in no way to blame - so the fact they are apologising just seems more of a PR exercise than anything sincere.
Zod said:
They failed to get a conviction in a case where the coroner had delivered an unlawful killing verdict. It's a different burden of proff, but that's their job.
So you don't actually have any specific knowledge of prosecution case which justifies the CPS looking at the case again other than, "they should have got a conviction because it's there job" - well, with such a compelling, evidence-based argument how could I do anything else other than change my mind? The burdens of proof are drastically different. A > 5/10 vs a > 9.5 / 10.
Zod said:
I've just had a quick look at your posting record, so I won't bother any further.
Yes, because it's not as easy to blag people with experience. If you care to present something with substance as to why the CPS should look at the case again then feel free. I'm happy to listen. Some vague logic because two verdicts with significantly different burdens of proof don't match doesn't reach the mark I'm afraid.
rewc said:
La Liga said:
Why did they? Were you at the trial to see how the prosecution presented the case and what evidence the presented?
Because they never considered a charge of assault as an alternative?
La Liga said:
IRC there were issues with charging assaults due to the incompetent first PM, but I am not sure.
A dodgy PM has little bearing on a charge of smacking an unarmed man from behind with a baton then shoving him to the ground with "unlawful & excessive force" (source: Met police).La Liga said:
IIRC there were issues with charging assaults due to the incompetent first PM, but I am not sure. The most serious offence (where there's a realistic prospect of conviction) should be tried, which was manslaughter.
They had 6 months to prosecute for assault but chose not to. The only reason there was a Manslaughter charge was because the inquest jury returned a verdict of unlawful killing. Left to their own devices the Met would have admitted nothing and PC Harwood would still be serving today.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Ian_Tomlinso...
Rovinghawk said:
La Liga said:
IRC there were issues with charging assaults due to the incompetent first PM, but I am not sure.
A dodgy PM has little bearing on a charge of smacking an unarmed man from behind with a baton then shoving him to the ground with "unlawful & excessive force" (source: Met police).Someone correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't the problem linking the assault to the injury due to the PM? There needs to be absolutely clear cause and effect at the criminal burden.
That left only a common assault as an assault option. This went statute barred after 6 months from the incident so was never really an option.
As a big guess;
If Harwood had been found guilty of assault it would/could have opened the floodgates for all sorts of spurious claims from people who have been shoved by the police at different times.
A few Imaginary 'If's incoming.
If Harwood had just given a shove and not a baton strike, if Tomlinson had not died - then a lot of people would have accepted that a cop shoving a drunk on their way is fair enough.
It wasn't an especially brutal shove, but it was the shove that caused the death, not the baton strike.
If Hardwood had been found guilty of assault for a moderate shove it would have set a precedent for police.
Frankly, the police need to be able to get a bit physical without worrying about getting charged with assault.
So, they didn't try him for assault.
That's my guess anyhow.
If Harwood had been found guilty of assault it would/could have opened the floodgates for all sorts of spurious claims from people who have been shoved by the police at different times.
A few Imaginary 'If's incoming.
If Harwood had just given a shove and not a baton strike, if Tomlinson had not died - then a lot of people would have accepted that a cop shoving a drunk on their way is fair enough.
It wasn't an especially brutal shove, but it was the shove that caused the death, not the baton strike.
If Hardwood had been found guilty of assault for a moderate shove it would have set a precedent for police.
Frankly, the police need to be able to get a bit physical without worrying about getting charged with assault.
So, they didn't try him for assault.
That's my guess anyhow.
Let's be clear about the assault aspect.
The 6 months relates the a common assault, which is the lowest level of assault. The reason the CPS said there was sufficient evidence for this is because it got around the issue linking the cause and effect due to contradictory pathologist issues. This is why, eventually, more serious assaults could not be charged.
More serious assaults do not have this time limitation on them.
It's not a case of deciding 'not to charge' him with a common assault, it's a case of if there's a prospect of a serious assault / manslaughter / murder charge, you don't sacrifice that because it's getting to 6 months and you are unable to reach a decision as to whether or not there is a much more serious offence that can be charged.
Can you imagine if a common assault had been charged prior to the unlawful killing verdict in the Coroner's court that led to the charge of manslaughter? At the time, not in retrospect.
The 6 months relates the a common assault, which is the lowest level of assault. The reason the CPS said there was sufficient evidence for this is because it got around the issue linking the cause and effect due to contradictory pathologist issues. This is why, eventually, more serious assaults could not be charged.
More serious assaults do not have this time limitation on them.
It's not a case of deciding 'not to charge' him with a common assault, it's a case of if there's a prospect of a serious assault / manslaughter / murder charge, you don't sacrifice that because it's getting to 6 months and you are unable to reach a decision as to whether or not there is a much more serious offence that can be charged.
Can you imagine if a common assault had been charged prior to the unlawful killing verdict in the Coroner's court that led to the charge of manslaughter? At the time, not in retrospect.
Snowboy said:
As a big guess;
If Harwood had been found guilty of assault it would/could have opened the floodgates for all sorts of spurious claims from people who have been shoved by the police at different times.
A few Imaginary 'If's incoming.
If Harwood had just given a shove and not a baton strike, if Tomlinson had not died - then a lot of people would have accepted that a cop shoving a drunk on their way is fair enough.
It wasn't an especially brutal shove, but it was the shove that caused the death, not the baton strike.
If Hardwood had been found guilty of assault for a moderate shove it would have set a precedent for police.
Frankly, the police need to be able to get a bit physical without worrying about getting charged with assault.
So, they didn't try him for assault.
That's my guess anyhow.
That's not the case. Force has to be justified on an individual basis. Him being charged within the 6 months for a common assault would have no bearing whatsoever on claims or use of force legislation. If Harwood had been found guilty of assault it would/could have opened the floodgates for all sorts of spurious claims from people who have been shoved by the police at different times.
A few Imaginary 'If's incoming.
If Harwood had just given a shove and not a baton strike, if Tomlinson had not died - then a lot of people would have accepted that a cop shoving a drunk on their way is fair enough.
It wasn't an especially brutal shove, but it was the shove that caused the death, not the baton strike.
If Hardwood had been found guilty of assault for a moderate shove it would have set a precedent for police.
Frankly, the police need to be able to get a bit physical without worrying about getting charged with assault.
So, they didn't try him for assault.
That's my guess anyhow.
Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 6th August 13:18
La Liga said:
Zod said:
They failed to get a conviction in a case where the coroner had delivered an unlawful killing verdict. It's a different burden of proff, but that's their job.
So you don't actually have any specific knowledge of prosecution case which justifies the CPS looking at the case again other than, "they should have got a conviction because it's there job" - well, with such a compelling, evidence-based argument how could I do anything else other than change my mind? The burdens of proof are drastically different. A > 5/10 vs a > 9.5 / 10.
La Liga said:
Zod said:
I've just had a quick look at your posting record, so I won't bother any further.
Yes, because it's not as easy to blag people with experience. La Liga said:
If you care to present something with substance as to why the CPS should look at the case again then feel free. I'm happy to listen. Some vague logic because two verdicts with significantly different burdens of proof don't match doesn't reach the mark I'm afraid.
"Some vague logic"? It's hardly some vague logic to suggest that an inquest unlawful killing verdict might suggest that acquittal of the man who pushed the victim and struck him with a baton might have been a surprising verdict. It was open to the CPS to seek to reopen the question of whether Harwood's disciplinary record should have been disclosed to the jury.Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff