Neither jury heard details of Harwood's prior disciplinary record, which can only be reported now. This includes how he quit the Met on health grounds in 2001 shortly before a planned disciplinary hearing into claims he illegally tried to arrest a driver following a road rage incident while off duty, altering his notes to retrospectively justify the actions. Harwood was nonetheless able to join another force, Surrey, before returning to serve with the Met in 2005.
He allegedly punched, throttled, kneed or threatened other suspects while in uniform in other alleged incidents.
Neither jury heard details of Harwood's prior disciplinary record, which can only be reported now. This includes how he quit the Met on health grounds in 2001 shortly before a planned disciplinary hearing into claims he illegally tried to arrest a driver following a road rage incident while off duty, altering his notes to retrospectively justify the actions. Harwood was nonetheless able to join another force, Surrey, before returning to serve with the Met in 2005.
He allegedly punched, throttled, kneed or threatened other suspects while in uniform in other alleged incidents.
Neither jury heard details of Harwood's prior disciplinary record, which can only be reported now. This includes how he quit the Met on health grounds in 2001 shortly before a planned disciplinary hearing into claims he illegally tried to arrest a driver following a road rage incident while off duty, altering his notes to retrospectively justify the actions. Harwood was nonetheless able to join another force, Surrey, before returning to serve with the Met in 2005.
He allegedly punched, throttled, kneed or threatened other suspects while in uniform in other alleged incidents.
because it had nothing to do with this case
To be fair all the details of Harwoods previous were known prior to the case as they were widely reported after hte original investigation. The geezer has a suspect attitude.
Neither jury heard details of Harwood's prior disciplinary record, which can only be reported now. This includes how he quit the Met on health grounds in 2001 shortly before a planned disciplinary hearing into claims he illegally tried to arrest a driver following a road rage incident while off duty, altering his notes to retrospectively justify the actions. Harwood was nonetheless able to join another force, Surrey, before returning to serve with the Met in 2005.
He allegedly punched, throttled, kneed or threatened other suspects while in uniform in other alleged incidents.
because it had nothing to do with this case
I think it all goes to the behaviour of the individual and I don't mean that just in this case. I agree with the comments that the force are a reflection of the society they police. Unfortunately, that isn't a nice thought for those who want to lead peaceful lives. As with society though, far more good than bad!
Likely that this officer will be dismissed at his disciplinary tribunal in September (according to The Times report just out) now and there should certainly be questions as to how he was ever allowed back into the force in the first place.
Good, I really don’t believe that pushing the bloke justifies a manslaughter conviction. He was deliberately being a dick on what was already a challenging day for the police
Pushing? Have you read ANYTHING on the case? Or read the whole sequence of events? Harwood was a driver. Nothing else. He took it upon himself to get kitted up & go & join his 'mates', where he batoned & shoved Tomlinson, a clearly confused man and unassociated with the demo.
Harwood is a thug in a policeman's uniform throwing his weight around and then hiding behind the badge, how many times have we seen that? For those who are talking about the situation - I appreciate that things were a little tense that day, but a PC with his experience could and should have handled the sitiation in afar more professional manner. He was not being threatened by Tomlinson and even if he was there were several other PCs around him. From the CCTV coverage anyone could discern that Ian Tomlinson was doing nothing more than being a bit annoying. He clearly was not part of any protest or was even with someone - the impression I had was that he was just being a bit curious and no doubt the few tins of stella he had drunk and his appearance made him a tad bolder/argumentative than was really the case.
I presume that Harwood was charged with "Constructive manslaughter" which is defined as committing an unlawful and dangerous act which results in death.
There are three requirements for this:
The defendant must commit an unlawful act. This must be a criminal act and must involve a "mens rea" (or mental intention) that demonstrates either intent or recklessness. The illegal act in question was pushing Tomlinson and then smacking him with the baton on the back. He didn't have to think or tell anyone that he was going to hit the next protestor - just to act recklessly and criminally. As a policeman he is allowed to use a certain amount of force (see the PACE Act 1984 - I can't recall which section off the top of my head but it's in there somewhere).
Secondly, the act must be dangerous. Whether the act is dangerous is however an objective thing and will differ from case to case and will depend on the perspective of an imaginary bystander/witness who is deemed to be "sober and reasonable". The defendant need not be aware the act is dangerous and the act need not be directed at the victim, although in this case it was. This allows a fair amount of force to be used in some cases while in others, such as this a minimum amount of force is used, the question revolves around proportionatality. The jury would need to be convinced here that Harwood acted with a disproportionate amount of force.
The act must cause the death of the victim.
The question is whether Harwood was deemed to be acting legally in pushing and then hitting Tomlinson with the baton. That is borderline legal/illegal, perhaps because he hit him once (I think) it was deemed by the jury to be acceptable - had he struck him several times when Tomlinson was say on the floor then it wouldn't have been.
In my opinion a prosecution for assault/ABH could and should have been made alongside the manslaughter charge and that would have stood a much better chance of succeeding.
Guess what...Harwood has faced 10 allegations of wrongdoing during his career.
Once may be a mistake, twice is unfortunate, three accusations & he must've broken loads of mirrors....but TEN? Makes me sick.
But he wasn't being charged on those - just his behaviour in this case.
Let's face it someone who spent a considerable number of years in the police and was never promoted above the rank of PC is either unambitious or simply not considered suitable to do anything other than do plod work. On the day in question he was given the onerous task of looking after the vehicles and the radios. That suggests to me that he was little more than a gopher.
what a waste of time. glad the police can go around shoving and battering people. glad that a guy can get off and still be able to carry on with what is not his first time at heavy handed policing. 10 times. however you cant use that he is a serial offender and is obviously a nasty piece of work.
The "Oh the police do such a good job" argument has no meaning here and on the most part yes they do alright.. in this instance its an individual who killed the guy it doesnt matter whether he's a police man or not,(in fact its probably worse) it doesnt excues him. i'm sure his actions were not meant to kill the guy but they did. you cant defend him because the police get bad treatment or bad rep. millwal get a bad rep by the media. if one of their fans knocks someone out and the guy dies from it i would hope that the millwall fan gets locked up, its not the rest of the fans or the clubs fault that one of their fans has killed someone.
The only thing that has something to do with the police force is why is this guy even got a job with them?
AS BFR says, strange there were no other charges in the alternative. A cynic might think they were "reasons" why the CPS did not include such counts. Me, I just think the CPS are worse than useless.
The police often have a very difficult job....... the actions of this officer just made there duties more difficult. A peculiar verdict, that justice appears to be the victim of.
Comments
He allegedly punched, throttled, kneed or threatened other suspects while in uniform in other alleged incidents.
To reiterate my point the media never tell the full story. The police get bad press considering the fantastic job they do day in and day out.
Likely that this officer will be dismissed at his disciplinary tribunal in September (according to The Times report just out) now and there should certainly be questions as to how he was ever allowed back into the force in the first place.
Once may be a mistake, twice is unfortunate, three accusations & he must've broken loads of mirrors....but TEN? Makes me sick.
Harwood is a thug in a policeman's uniform throwing his weight around and then hiding behind the badge, how many times have we seen that? For those who are talking about the situation - I appreciate that things were a little tense that day, but a PC with his experience could and should have handled the sitiation in afar more professional manner. He was not being threatened by Tomlinson and even if he was there were several other PCs around him. From the CCTV coverage anyone could discern that Ian Tomlinson was doing nothing more than being a bit annoying. He clearly was not part of any protest or was even with someone - the impression I had was that he was just being a bit curious and no doubt the few tins of stella he had drunk and his appearance made him a tad bolder/argumentative than was really the case.
I presume that Harwood was charged with "Constructive manslaughter" which is defined as committing an unlawful and dangerous act which results in death.
There are three requirements for this:
The defendant must commit an unlawful act. This must be a criminal act and must involve a "mens rea" (or mental intention) that demonstrates either intent or recklessness. The illegal act in question was pushing Tomlinson and then smacking him with the baton on the back. He didn't have to think or tell anyone that he was going to hit the next protestor - just to act recklessly and criminally. As a policeman he is allowed to use a certain amount of force (see the PACE Act 1984 - I can't recall which section off the top of my head but it's in there somewhere).
Secondly, the act must be dangerous. Whether the act is dangerous is however an objective thing and will differ from case to case and will depend on the perspective of an imaginary bystander/witness who is deemed to be "sober and reasonable". The defendant need not be aware the act is dangerous and the act need not be directed at the victim, although in this case it was. This allows a fair amount of force to be used in some cases while in others, such as this a minimum amount of force is used, the question revolves around proportionatality. The jury would need to be convinced here that Harwood acted with a disproportionate amount of force.
The act must cause the death of the victim.
The question is whether Harwood was deemed to be acting legally in pushing and then hitting Tomlinson with the baton. That is borderline legal/illegal, perhaps because he hit him once (I think) it was deemed by the jury to be acceptable - had he struck him several times when Tomlinson was say on the floor then it wouldn't have been.
In my opinion a prosecution for assault/ABH could and should have been made alongside the manslaughter charge and that would have stood a much better chance of succeeding.
Let's face it someone who spent a considerable number of years in the police and was never promoted above the rank of PC is either unambitious or simply not considered suitable to do anything other than do plod work. On the day in question he was given the onerous task of looking after the vehicles and the radios. That suggests to me that he was little more than a gopher.
thats the law.
on my personal view...
what a waste of time. glad the police can go around shoving and battering people. glad that a guy can get off and still be able to carry on with what is not his first time at heavy handed policing. 10 times. however you cant use that he is a serial offender and is obviously a nasty piece of work.
The "Oh the police do such a good job" argument has no meaning here and on the most part yes they do alright.. in this instance its an individual who killed the guy it doesnt matter whether he's a police man or not,(in fact its probably worse) it doesnt excues him. i'm sure his actions were not meant to kill the guy but they did. you cant defend him because the police get bad treatment or bad rep. millwal get a bad rep by the media. if one of their fans knocks someone out and the guy dies from it i would hope that the millwall fan gets locked up, its not the rest of the fans or the clubs fault that one of their fans has killed someone.
The only thing that has something to do with the police force is why is this guy even got a job with them?
But let's face it, he weren't the nicest bloke was he.
A peculiar verdict, that justice appears to be the victim of.