David Allen Green

A critical and liberal look at law and policy

A police thug and an unlawful killing

Simon Harwood has been acquitted of manslaughter of Ian Tomlinson but questions remain, says David Allen Green.

By David Allen Green Published 19 July 2012 17:31

Simon Harwood was acquitted of the manslaughter of Ian Tomlinson at the G20 protests. Photo: Getty

PC Simon Harwood, a thug, has today been found not guilty by a jury of the manslaughter of Ian Tomlinson, even though another jury had previously found that Tomlinson had been unlawfully killed.

The Coroner’s Inquest had previously decided as follows:

Time, place and circumstances at or in which injury was sustained:

Mr Tomlinson was on his way home from work on 1st April 2009 during the G20 demonstrations.

He was fatally injured at around 19.20 in Royal Exchange Buildings (the Passage), near to the junction with Cornhill, London EC3. This was as a result of a baton strike from behind and a push in the back by a police officer which caused Mr Tomlinson to fall heavily.

Both the baton strike and the push were excessive and unreasonable.

As a result, Mr Tomlinson suffered internal bleeding which led to his collapse within a few minutes and his subsequent death.

At the time of the strike and the push, Mr Tomlinson was walking away from the police line. He was complying with police instructions to leave Royal Exchange Buildings (the Passage). He posed no threat.

Conclusion of the jury as to the death:

Unlawful killing.

The coroner’s jury were not permitted to name the officer and, somewhat counter-intuitively, a verdict of “unlawful killing” is not itself a finding of any kind of homicide.

So is it appropriate to describe Harwood as a thug? It is certainly a fair comment on the video evidence of his conduct on that day. It also covers, in my view, his own admissions at the trial, for example:

Asked by Mark Dennis QC, prosecuting, whether he accepted he had gone "over the top" having seen footage of Tomlinson walking away from a line of police trying to clear a pedestrian passageway in London's City district, Harwood agreed. He said: "Watching the video, yes, I probably have."

And it certainly is consistent with his five lever-arch folder disciplinary record, which was withheld from the jury. His defenders who maintain “nothing was proved” are right, and so I make no accusation that he has incurred any criminal or disciplinary liability; but there is no doubt to me Harwood can be described as a thug simply on the evidence that is publicly available. Just watch the video.

However, an allegation of thuggery is certainly not the same as an allegation of homicide, and today’s verdict makes it clear that Harwood cannot be described as a killer to the criminal standard of proof. A more competent prosecutor might have made sure that a prosecution for common assault could have been brought as an alternative to manslaughter. But the CPS left the decision too long until such a charge was impossible because of the six-month limitation period.

There were always going to be problems with the disputed medical evidence in this case, especially as the first post mortem was inadequate. In view of this, the criminal liability of Harwood in respect of the incident should not have rested on the “all or nothing” attempt of a manslaughter prosecution. Yet again someone dies and no police officer is convicted of anything in relation to the death.

A civil action may now be mounted against Harwood and the police. There also seems no reason why there cannot be a “Health and Safety” prosecution against the Metropolitan police for even allowing a thug like Harwood loose in a public order situation (similar to the prosecution brought following the death of Jean Charles de Menezes). And public disciplinary proceedings are to be brought against Harwood.

In the meantime, a man died by reason of what a coroner’s jury ruled was an unlawful killing, and the thug who struck him continues still to be a police officer.

But it was not manslaughter.

David Allen Green is legal correspondent of the New Statesman

More from David Allen Green

View the discussion thread.

41 comments

Thu, 2012-09-20 13:37 — seputarsoftware

Nothing surprises me by this injustice as it follows others,but the waterproof is their pro all to See-so how were the jury directed update-seputar-software.blogspot.com/2012/09/sepeda-motor-bebek-injeksi-kencang-dan.html?
This verdict affects persons who believe with the intention of UK is a on bad terms people which is on its way
Down.

New statesmanThe Watcher from Oz's picture

Thu, 2012-07-26 14:15 — New statesmanThe Watcher from Oz (not verified)

Well, it is ok. All the Brits thuggish Police Officers can get jobs in Western Australia. Unbelievable what they have brought here. And they get to wear guns and Tasers.

Tue, 2012-07-24 07:38 — Mex (not verified)

When you look at the way the leftie scum were behaving smashing and rioting, not protesting,it makes you wonder why there are not more deaths like this in the socialsit paradise of Chavez.

Sat, 2012-07-21 19:17 — Roger the Cat (not verified)

I wonder what the outcome would have been if the roles had been reversed and it was Tomlinson who pushed Harwood to the ground resulting in his death. I expect by now he would be serving a life sentence.

It is high time that the way the Police use force came under scrutiny. A new and more aggressive, interventionist, approach to the way police deal with incidents seems to have insidiously developed. One has to wonder how many fatalities have occurred in the last 20 years.

I believe there are very real political reasons behind this change in Police methods. Margaret Thatcher's pique at her failure to re-introduce the Death Penalty, the successful outcome of the Iranian Embassy siege by deploying the SAS, and the death of WPC Yvonne Fletcher at the Libyan Embassy siege all encouraged the populist belief that law-breakers get what they deserve; strong-arm tactics work; and the Police are hopelessly out-gunned on the streets.

It is also true that Police Units can suffer from an organisational phenomenon known a Groupthink. Despite supposedly rigorous psychological profiling, group feelings of omnipotence, superiority to other groups, an inward looking culture, and over-sensitivity to any criticism is can occur even amongst disciplined individuals. Why do they join? What motivates them?

Sat, 2012-07-21 09:07 — Russell E. Willis

Ecclesiastes 8:14 ( KJV; 1611 EDITION ) reads as follows:
"There is a vanitie which is done vpon the earth, that there be iust men vnto whom it happeneth according to the worke of the wicked : againe, there be wicked men , to whom it happeneth according to the worke of the righteous : I said, that this also is vanitie."
Sometimes life is not fair. Simon Harwood should no longer be a police officer.

Sincerely in Christ,
Russell E. Willis
P.S. - Please read Proverbs 23:23.

Sat, 2012-07-21 07:35 — thomas vesely

the institutions of the west are hollow,broken.
who benefits ?
our owners !

Fri, 2012-07-20 20:50 — Mrs.Josephine Hyde-Hartley (not verified)

Yes but whose video is it anyway? Is it a " works" video, taken for the purposes of training workers in the public arena - or is it something produced in the public/ commons for the benefit of the commons/public?

Does common assault apply when people doing their normal job at work hurt somebody else? Or if not -is it really a true and correct use of public resources that ends up treating ordinary members of the general public like roadkill?

Fri, 2012-07-20 12:55 — Seb (not verified)

The jury have sent a firm message to the Met Police that they can do whatever they want and not face the consequences.
There must have been some serious bribery involved in this verdict.

Fri, 2012-07-20 10:41 — swatantra

Causation was not specifically proven in this instance, hence the Jury's hesitation He could just as well have tripped over the pavement.
But we may end upo with 3 conclusions
1 The Coroners Ruling on an unlawful death
2 The Jury's Aquital
3 The Civil Proceedings deciding on Responsibility and Damages

So any chance of reconciling these three conclusions?
The other point is that the time for a National Police Force has come and proper sharing of information; if not a National then at least Regional Police Forces. 43 is too many.

Fri, 2012-07-20 09:35 — Tom (iow) (not verified)

Two other serious concerns about this trial have emerged since my first post.

Firstly is the reason for excluding the bad character evidence on Harwood. I could understand why it would be unfair to include unsubstantiated allegations, but all other defendants have lost this protection when the allegations are found to be relevant. But here, the jusge decided they were not relevant, on the grounds that Harwood's push on Tomlinson was uncontested. That sounds great, until you consider that part of his defence was that he held an honest belief that it was lawful force. Clearly this makes the allegations directly relevant to the truth of this honest belief, so the judge's reasoning is deeply flawed. It would have been correct if the only defence was lack of causation, but once Harwood ran the lawful force defence he should have been held to have discarded that shield.

The other, and more serious, is that thevery patchy record of Patel in botching post mortems was not put to the jury at all. I cannot understand how this is possible as he is not entitled to the same protection as the defendant from bad character evidence. It smells really bad to me, and the whole 'it was decided by a well informed jury' line is looking pretty poor in light of this.

Fri, 2012-07-20 09:13 — Realist (not verified)

When the police are seen to be able to get away with virtually anything it breeds contempt for the law throughout society. They should be squeaky clean on all counts. Furthermore I find it amazing that, in a country where you need a CRB check seemingly to buy a pint of milk these days, a man who has a track record of violent thuggery manages to escape any sort of vetting to rejoin the organisation he left as a consequence of unlawful acts (albeit under the guise of "ill health"). One law for them, another for the rest of them. Is it any wonder last summer's riots occurred? Not to me it isn't.

Maybe the right wing hang 'em flog 'em brigade might consider these points before rushing to the defence of a common thug. I suppose you're all too busy trying to think up ways of blaming Gordon Brown and what you perceive to be socialism for this.

Fri, 2012-07-20 05:34 — iain metcalfe (not verified)

our very own O.J. good coppers will suffer because of this coward bully. disgraceful!!!

Fri, 2012-07-20 11:05 — Robert Taggart

So they should - guilt by association - also by Police Federation connivance.

Fri, 2012-07-20 05:11 — Trotskie (not verified)

Amazing thes e-liberal leftie journalists when it comes to the police. I saw Tomlinson running after somebody shouting and swearing and falling over all this whilst selling newspapers! His family who disowned him and the wife he has not seen for 12 years? suddenly became protective. What a shit society these liberals have created.

Fri, 2012-07-20 11:33 — RANDSKIE (not verified)

What a remarkable pack of slurs. If you had the balls to write under your real name I'd shop you up for libel...

...but you don't have the balls do you? You're a coward, a coward who defames the family of an unlawfully killed innocent man. Just stop and think about what you're doing, imagine what normal people would think of you if they knew what you are up to.

Fri, 2012-07-20 05:30 — iain metcalfe (not verified)

harwood is a disgusting coward who will get his by natural law. the police force and the criminal justice system are a disgrace. no wonder the world is laughing at us

Fri, 2012-07-20 00:42 — Thormod (not verified)

This criminal thug should be in jail for a very long time. Plain and simple.

Thu, 2012-07-19 23:54 — flypie

Well actual jaded48 hear say evidence is now allowed the police use it on a regular basis since the criminal justice act 2003 allowed it. The there is a bad character evidence, which his complaints record defiantly was, again criminal justice act 2003, and again used on a regular basis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay_in_English_law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_character_evidence

But in fairness people have been found innocent in similar circumstance, the question is why did the CPS not include assault charges. The CPS's relationship with the police is flawed, it is often pushed around by the police to press charges which have little or no merit, in order to harass people with bail conditions.

The comments in support of Harwood here do have the whiff of that strange language Police English, which is a strange combination of High English and Premisership footballer gramma.

Fri, 2012-07-20 13:42 — jaded48 (not verified)

Complaints against police are rife.I have had lots of them,usually made by criminals who want to muddy the water and put pressure on the police/cps to drop charges that are coming their way.
I personally don't know this officer and i'm talking generally.His record doesn't make nice reading but none of them are convictions.I'm not comfortable with the fact he left the Met and then was taken back on as HR would have known his background.
I know full well next time i'm on duty at any demonstration then this case will be thrown in my face.

Fri, 2012-07-20 15:01 — flypie

I've made several complaints only to be threatened and abused by the investigating office, Inspector Damien Walsh, despite the fact that it has since be proven that the officer had cocked up completely. The original complaint was bollocks and by the time it go to me it wasn't even recognisable as the original bollocks. One quote made by Walsh was "This officer is known to me he is honest" that doesn't prevent people cocking up but cops always assume that any complaint is that the subject is being corrupt rather than just idiotic/badly trained/ mistaken. It is part of the police inability to admit they make mistakes. There is no other method to get a second opinion than make a formal complaint.

Thu, 2012-07-19 22:49 — Neville Peters (not verified)

A thug, and a killer.

Thu, 2012-07-19 22:44 — jaded48 (not verified)

I assume you would all be happy for trials to include unfounded allegations against defendants?
Or just for police officers? How very liberal.

Fri, 2012-07-20 12:21 — StevieB (not verified)

Not only are they not unfounded, they are fully documented. Your point is therefore fallacious.

Thu, 2012-07-19 22:53 — Neville Peters (not verified)

Except they are not unfounded. There is no suggestion at all that they are unfounded.

Fri, 2012-07-20 20:36 — jaded48 (not verified)

Not proven in a court of law by a jury.

Thu, 2012-07-19 22:23 — Chris J Squire (not verified)

Tho not a lawyer, i suggest that 'battery' is nearer the mark: 'Battery is a criminal offence involving unlawful physical contact, distinct from assault which is the apprehension, not fear, of such contact.' [wikipedia].

Thu, 2012-07-19 21:29 — Mur (not verified)

Its fair enough for a police officer to carry out his duty. You cry babies would be the first to scream for assistance if you were under threat.

Fri, 2012-07-20 11:51 — RUM (not verified)

I didn't realise that hitting an innocent bystander with a baton (who was complying with police instructions) then pushing him over and leaving him to die counted as "duty".

Thu, 2012-07-19 23:29 — Jos Bell (not verified)

If I were unfortunate enough to get trapped in a demonstration and tried to get away, it's fair enough to hope that I wouldn't be rushed at from behind and killed by an out of control police officer.

Thu, 2012-07-19 20:09 — alan moon (not verified)

nothing surprises me at this injustice as it follows others,but the proof is their for all to
see-so how were the jury directed?
This verdict affects those who believe that UK is a divided country which is on its way
down.

Thu, 2012-07-19 20:02 — Bill Lowery (not verified)

Last year I lodged complaints against two officers of Northumbria Police. The one against the sergeant was dropped by the civilian investigator who then lied repeatedly to the IPPC. They in turn did not bother to contact me to confirm that we (myself and the CI) had indeed had a "verbal agreement" that I wanted to drop my complaint.
When the police are above the law, any appropriate action against them will be viewed by our lords and masters as criminal.

Thu, 2012-07-19 19:51 — Anony Mouse (not verified)

What a hero of the Met. I'm sure his fellow officers are so proud at the way they've protected their friend.

"At a pre-trial hearing they said an independent witness reported seeing Harwood knee a man in the kidney as he lay on the ground in handcuffs.

This case was dealt by "local resolution", as was another in which Harwood was alleged to have threatened a father and daughter, telling them he would burn down their house. The allegation was recorded as involving "assault and racial abuse".

The second case raised by prosecutors at the criminal trial came in November 2008, when Harwood allegedly twisted handcuffs placed on an AA patrolman whose vehicle he had stopped.

At the inquest, Harwood's lawyers argued all the complaints against him were unproven, except for the most recent, six months before the G20 protests, in which he unlawfully accessed the police national computer."

Thu, 2012-07-19 19:48 — Anony Mouse (not verified)

"o odds are, he won't be a police officer for much longer."

But will get a fat pension, a big pay-off and will be a hero to his fellow officers. One day, in the distant future, the Met will finally stop protecting bad policemen. But today, the omerta of the police trumps anything else.

Thu, 2012-07-19 18:35 — Tom (iow) (not verified)

Part of Harwood's defence seems to have been merely that the force was reasonable, and just about every police commentator seems adamant that there is a general right to use 'reasonable' force against anybody at any time. This is not correct - there must also be a belief that there is a lawful reason to use the force too.

Yet according to Radio 4 at 6pm this evening, this flawed interpretation was what the jury were directed to consider. If so this is staggering.

There is also footage of Harwood carrying out two similar pushes on other innocent bystanders, yet amazingly there was no report of this being put to him during the trial - it would clearly have been relevant to whether he had an honest belief that there was a lawful basis to use force on Mr Tomlinson.

Thu, 2012-07-19 18:26 — joe bloggs (not verified)

No one has ever been able to explain to me what exactly the CPS is for. - Apart from enmploying large numbers of low grade lawyers and civil servants, that is.

Thu, 2012-07-19 18:16 — Patrick Graham (not verified)

The issue that needs focus is our beloved CPS - not just the delays:- failure to prosecute in a timely manner is justice denied, - but its way of dealing with Police assaults and potentially other issues where it has an essential working relationship with a corporate body.
333 deaths in police custody with no convictions is a strong indicator of a problem here.

Thu, 2012-07-19 18:16 — nourredine

That is not the point.
The family wanted and want JUSTICE.
That is the point, and it is the same system as the banks, MP's expenses, phone hacking etc.....
The whole penal code is to be revued.

Thu, 2012-07-19 18:16 — Damian (not verified)

There is still his misconduct hearing to come as well. It seems strange he is a police officer still - given the MET have essentially admitted he should never have been allowed back after his first misconduct charge. I feel so sorry for the Tomlinson family.

Thu, 2012-07-19 18:14 — Michaelangelo (not verified)

I keep humming that Neil Young song to myself:

"Tin soldiers and Nixon coming
We're finally on our own
Last summer I heard the drumming
Four dead in Ohio"

The lessons from recent demonstrations are clear: if you're there, you're a legitimate target - kettling, Smellie, now Harwood. And what would these actions ever have acheived against an establishment that clearly despises WE, The People?

Perhaps we should study what Czech writers did durng the Soviet occupation.

Thu, 2012-07-19 17:59 — Andreas (not verified)

It's worth pointing out that in all due likelihood, PC Harwood currently isn't allowed to go on duty, and his inquest was being delayed until the trial finished. So odds are, he won't be a police officer for much longer.