G20 Ian Tomlinson conclusion
Discussion
The second PM is the one I'm more interested in; Nat Carey has made a career out of PM's for the old PCA and the IPCC and interestingly, has never come to a verdict of natural causes after a death in custody/after police contact. I was present once at the Old Bailey when he was hammered for this. Funnily enough, the family have never disclosed the conclusions of their PM, either.
Rightly or wrongly, the CPS charging standard require injury to be "more than transient and trifling" for a charge of ABH. For example, a broken nose or even ribs are usually classed as common assault.
Rightly or wrongly, the CPS charging standard require injury to be "more than transient and trifling" for a charge of ABH. For example, a broken nose or even ribs are usually classed as common assault.
BDZ said:
Can't say I'm surprised at this outcome. If there had been conclusive evidence that the officer had killed Tomlinson I think there would have been charges a lot sooner, the sheer amount of time it took shows how inconclusive the evidence was imho.
You're right. NO ONE is surprised at this outcome.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.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
Derek Smith said:
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.
I think we can make this as clear as we like, but it doesn't stop this event looking and smelling like a stitch-up/ cover up.These things have unfortunately not been unheard of in British history. Bloody Sunday and Kelly enquiries for starters?
Scraggles said:
apparently as the other thread is a .co.uk, am not registered to reply....
why is anyone surprised at no charges, guy is alive before the policeman comes into contact and dead soon after....
I expected a few replies similar to this. It seems of that people of experience always conclude that the CPS will ruthlessley charge police officers. Indeed, if the CPS's full threshold test is applied then the second public interest test appears to always be made out when it come to Cops regardless of the circumstances. Combine with the lowering of evidential standards (first test) then the idea or implication that the CPS won't charge because it's an officer is rubbish. why is anyone surprised at no charges, guy is alive before the policeman comes into contact and dead soon after....
simply saw a film clip of some guy dressed in plod uniform, he was identified, the guy was alive before being manhandled / struck / beaten and then he died soon after
not a detective, but suspect that what happened in close proximity to the officer had a major effect on the guy's death
not a detective, but suspect that what happened in close proximity to the officer had a major effect on the guy's death
It was on the radio earlier.
The CPS has taken longer than 12 months to decide so I think it was said that an assualt charge times out after 6 months so is too late.
There's still possibility of ABH if they want, although it might hold up the inquest again.
They cant do the inquest first as the PC might be wary of what he says.
Wouldnt it be better to have an aircraft accident type investigation where everyone can be open about what they did wrong so as to try to prevent it happening again in the future?
The CPS has taken longer than 12 months to decide so I think it was said that an assualt charge times out after 6 months so is too late.
There's still possibility of ABH if they want, although it might hold up the inquest again.
They cant do the inquest first as the PC might be wary of what he says.
Wouldnt it be better to have an aircraft accident type investigation where everyone can be open about what they did wrong so as to try to prevent it happening again in the future?
I can't understand how this police officer has gotten away with this, when compared to PC Michael Bunting ( http://www.afaircop.co.uk/ ). The first Post Mortem was apparently carried out before the evidence of the assault was known, I wonder if this has subsequently influenced the following PM's (knowing what they were looking to prove)
mobi said:
I can't understand how this police officer has gotten away with this, when compared to PC Michael Bunting ( http://www.afaircop.co.uk/ ). The first Post Mortem was apparently carried out before the evidence of the assault was known, I wonder if this has subsequently influenced the following PM's (knowing what they were looking to prove)
I have said that in another thread (see the one on Dr Patel)The CPS said that based on his evidence it will screw up any trial, but if his evidence is written off as unreliable it might open the door again...
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff