Ian Tomlinson unlawfully killed, inquest finds

Source - Guardian

 

The jury in the inquest into the death of Ian Tomlinson has concluded he was unlawfully killed by a police officer at the G20 protests.

 

The inquest did not apportion blame for Tomlinson's death and did not refer to PC Simon Harwood – the officer who struck the newspaper vendor – by name.

 

However, it will be taken to be the strongest possible indictment of the actions of the police officer, who told jurors he believed his baton strike and push were justified.

 

Shortly after the verdict, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) said Keir Starmer QC, director of public prosecutions, would carry out a "thorough review" of his decision last year not to prosecute Harwood. Starmer said last year there was insufficient evidence to prosecute the officer for manslaughter.

 

On Tuesday the jury said Harwood used "excessive and unreasonable" force on Tomlinson, who "posed no threat".

 

Police initially denied Tomlinson had contact with officers before his death on 1 April 2009.

 

The Independent Police Complaints Commission only launched a criminal inquiry a week later, after the Guardian released footage showing the newspaper seller being struck from behind by Harwood as he walked along Royal Exchange Buildings.

 

The footage was played repeatedly during the five-week hearing at the International Dispute Resolution Centre in Fleet Street, London.

 

Jurors were given two divergent explanations of his death.

 

The first pathologist to conduct a postmortem examination on the body, Dr Freddy Patel, said he died of a heart attack as a result of coronary heart disease. He was contradicted by three other pathologists who examined Tomlinson's body, all of whom found he died of internal bleeding in the abdomen.

 

Starmer said last July that complications with medical evidence led him to believe prosecutors were unlikely to prove a cause of death. His decision was supported by the attorney general, Dominic Grieve.

 

Both will now have to consider how a jury of seven men and four women concluded Tomlinson died as a result of being pushed by Harwood.

 

The CPS will consider new medical evidence given to the inquest by Prof Kevin Channer, a heart expert who appeared to contradict the theory that Tomlinson died of a heart attack.

 

He said defibrillator readings of Tomlinson's heart activity moments after his collapse were "entirely inconsistent" with Patel's explanation of his death.

 

Tomlinson, a 47-year-old father of nine, had been trying to walk home from work through the demonstrations near the Bank of England on the evening he died. An alcoholic, he had been drinking heavily and was looking vacant and confused as he was repeatedly turned away from police cordons.

 

At 7.20pm he stumbled on to Royal Exchange Buildings, a passage police had been ordered to clear. Tomlinson had his hands in his pockets and was walking away from police when he was struck with a baton and pushed from behind by Harwood.

 

During three days of evidence at the inquest, Harwood, 43, told jurors that he believed at the time that Tomlinson was obstructing police and he believed his actions were proportionate.

 

Harwood will face a Metropolitan police gross misconduct hearing, at which he stands accused of "inadvertently causing or contributing to" Tomlinson's death. If found guilty by the disciplinary panel, Harwood, who is currently suspended on full pay, would almost certainly be sacked.

 

Inquest jurors were told they could only decide Tomlinson was unlawfully killed if they were convinced beyond reasonable doubt, the same burden of proof which would apply in a criminal trial.

Tuesday's verdict brings to an end a two-year wait for Tomlinson's family, who maintain that police attempted to cover up officers' involvement in his death.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

The bold part is, I feel, the most important here.... A Inquest Jury has now heard the same evidence a trial jury would, they've had the same burden of proof that a trial jury would and have come up with an equivalent of a "guilty" verdict.... So, howabout the DPP stops p*ssy-footing around, stops treating us like a bunch of idiots and actually stop coming up with feeble excuses not to prosecute this b/astard.....

 

This is ONLY a result if a Manslaughter charge and subsequent trial is now heard, anything less is insulting...... I'm sorry, but a bloody internal Met Police "Disciplinary Hearing" just isn't nearly good enough.....

According to the BBC the CPS will be reviewing the decision. That review could lead to the decision being reversed and Harwood being charged with murder or manslaughter.

According to the BBC the CPS will be reviewing the decision. That review could lead to the decision being reversed and Harwood being charged with murder or manslaughter.

 

You'll forgive me if I dont hold my breath mate, given the fact that almost two years has passed.. And in all this time Harwood's been drawing a wage while being suspended at the tax-payer's expense.... <_<

I knew you'd have started this thread Scott before I even saw it! You seem to have a bit of an obsession with this case and an unhealthy agenda against the police. :(

 

I personally HOPE the CPS don't take the cop to court but THINK they will, on a manslaughter charge. Hopefully the jury will see sense and find him not guilty though. Medical experts can't agree as to what caused his death. He was an alcoholic and unwell man and was goading the police by repeatedly refusing to move from the protest area. Yes I have watched the video, again and again, before you ask.

Edited May 5, 201114 yr by Common Sense

I knew you'd have started this thread Scott before I even saw it! You seem to have a bit of an obsession with this case and an unhealthy agenda against the police. :(

 

I personally HOPE the CPS don't take the cop to court but THINK they will, on a manslaughter charge. Hopefully the jury will see sense and find him not guilty though. Medical experts can't agree as to what caused his death. He was an alcoholic and unwell man and was goading the police by repeatedly refusing to move from the protest area. Yes I have watched the video, again and again, before you ask.

The only "medical expert" who said he died of a heart attack is facing disciplinary action for a series of errors. He should never have been allowed anywhere near this post mortem in the first place. Ian Tomlinson was not goading the police. He was moving away from the area as requested and was hit from behind. I think you must have been watching the wrong video.

The only "medical expert" who said he died of a heart attack is facing disciplinary action for a series of errors. He should never have been allowed anywhere near this post mortem in the first place. Ian Tomlinson was not goading the police. He was moving away from the area as requested and was hit from behind. I think you must have been watching the wrong video.

 

Dude, it's Chris, he's an idiot and a spammer... I've given up on him to be honest....

 

Ew he was a father of 9. What a chav

Ew he was a father of 9. What a chav

Five of them were his stepchildren although he had brought them up as if they were his own so count yourself lucky that the dead can't sue for libel.

Dude, it's Chris, he's an idiot and a spammer... I've given up on him to be honest....

 

So anyone who doesn't agree with you on everything Scott is an "idiot"? :rolleyes: Never heard of DIFFERENT OPINIONS? Just because you think the cop should be jailed for murder doesn't mean everyone does. A lot of people on DS actually agree with me that the cop's been through enough already. Yes, maybe lose his job and then that should be the end of the matter.

Edited May 6, 201114 yr by Common Sense

So anyone who doesn't agree with you on everything Scott is an "idiot"? :rolleyes: Never heard of DIFFERENT OPINIONS? Just because you think the cop should be jailed for murder doesn't mean everyone does. A lot of people on DS actually agree with me that the cop's been through enough already. Yes, maybe lose his job and then that should be the end of the matter.

Oh, the poor sensitive flower. We might as well let everyone suspected of murder or manslaughter off for the same reason.

Oh, the poor sensitive flower. We might as well let everyone suspected of murder or manslaughter off for the same reason.

 

To be fair, didn't an illegal immigrant get let off from manslaughter after running over a girl and leaving her because he had a family and it would be against his human rights to neglect him fro his family :angry:

 

And Common has a point, Grimly rarely accepts anyone elses opinion and seems a little manic

To be fair, didn't an illegal immigrant get let off from manslaughter after running over a girl and leaving her because he had a family and it would be against his human rights to neglect him fro his family :angry:

 

And Common has a point, Grimly rarely accepts anyone elses opinion and seems a little manic

 

He tends to dismiss other peoples' views because he's so nailed-on about his own, and has actually considered the issues at length unlike yourself.

Edited May 7, 201114 yr by MancunianGiraffe

He tends to dismiss other peoples' views because he's so nailed-on about his own, and has actually considered the issues at length unlike yourself.

 

But his views are sometimes opinions, not facts, so he should accept other people think different

But his views are sometimes opinions, not facts, so he should accept other people think different

 

 

Spot on. He thinks his are the only views that exist. :rolleyes:

He tends to dismiss other peoples' views because he's so nailed-on about his own, and has actually considered the issues at length unlike yourself.

I actually find that you can have a really good debate with Grimly from the otherside. As long as you know your $h!t and you present a well reasoned logical argument he treats you with respect and counters.

 

I've learnt a fair bit from debating with Grimly on here.

So anyone who doesn't agree with you on everything Scott is an "idiot"? :rolleyes: Never heard of DIFFERENT OPINIONS? Just because you think the cop should be jailed for murder doesn't mean everyone does. A lot of people on DS actually agree with me that the cop's been through enough already. Yes, maybe lose his job and then that should be the end of the matter.

 

Maybe people are sometimes too quick to jump on you in this forum (for instance, I've heard many other people say similar things to you on Ian Tomlinson, even though I disagree with you). But, in the past, you've so often said things that are clearly just meant to get a reaction (saying there should be a crackdown on benefits when you yourself, maybe legitimately, claim benefits; claiming you vote BNP "for a laugh" when you're married to an ethnic minority) that it's not surprising that people don't take you seriously.

Spot on. He thinks his are the only views that exist. :rolleyes:

 

You could spend a little more time debating the issue rather than posting one badly-informed comment then starting to make personal snipes.

So anyone who doesn't agree with you on everything Scott is an "idiot"? :rolleyes: Never heard of DIFFERENT OPINIONS? Just because you think the cop should be jailed for murder doesn't mean everyone does. A lot of people on DS actually agree with me that the cop's been through enough already. Yes, maybe lose his job and then that should be the end of the matter.

 

he didn't say you were an idiot for disagreeing with him, it's just a well known fact that you're an idiot.

he didn't say you were an idiot for disagreeing with him, it's just a well known fact that you're an idiot.

 

Couldn't have put it better myself...

 

If people aren't prepared to come on this forum and actually argue a point properly, well, sorry, I'm not going to waste my time bothering to interact with you... It's not as if no one knows the actual purpose of this forum.. Craig might've been an offensive dick with some repellant views, but at least he actually debated...

 

Crazy Chris, so you reckon the "poor copper" has suffered enough. Seriously? Yeah, he's been suffering SO much for the past two years sitting on his arse, doing nothing and drawing a wage at the tax-payer's expense... FUKK HIM, HE SHOULD BE IN PRISON SLOPPING OUT EXCREMENT....

 

To be fair, didn't an illegal immigrant get let off from manslaughter after running over a girl and leaving her because he had a family and it would be against his human rights to neglect him fro his family :angry:

 

And Common has a point, Grimly rarely accepts anyone elses opinion and seems a little manic

 

TO BE FAIR - That guy was actually put on trial

TO BE FAIR - He wasn't "let off", just given a ridiculously short tarriff

TO BE FAIR - Two wrongs don't make a right...

 

TO BE FAIR - You're comparing chalk with cheese....