Was there not some suggestion that the victim had some pre-existing condition, and that the actions of Tomlinson were nothing to do with his collapse?

There was, from a subsequently discredited pathologist.

Oh and Tomlinson was the victim BTW

Because the jury is meant to make a decision on the facts of the case before them, not on the reputation (deserved or otherwise) of the defendant and victim. The same reason that previous convictions are not (generally) disclosed to juries for anyone being tried in the courts.

Yep, and despite my annoyance at the outcome I still don't think defendants records should be known by the jury in most cases.

Plus I doubt his record would have made any difference in this case, if the video of him attacking Ian Tomlinson isn't enough then I doubt his previous record would have made the difference.

On a slightly separate point, his record shows how the cover up/protect each other at all costs mentality is still alive and well in our wonderful police force.

It might very well have made a difference, that's why it wasnt allowed as evidence. There was no real dispute over what Harwood did, therefore it was not necessary to demonstrate that he had a propensity to do that sort of thing. He wasn't acquitted because it was doubted that he had struck Mr Tomlinson, he was acquitted because it was doubted whether his actions constituted manslaughter. His previous conduct was not relevant to that issue.

But clearly the issue as to why he was allowed to remain in the police force is very relevant to any further action that is taken as a result of the trial.

Agreed.

hence why I said I know why this wasnt disclosed and debated whether that knowledge of (IMO) pertinent facts would have led to a different conclusion

That is not the reason. Evidence of either similar fact or character may be prejudicial in ANY case. If it wasn't, nobody would be trying to get it in!

The issue is whether its potential probative value outweighs its potential prejudicial effect. Clearly, the court here must have decided that it did.


On the very limited reports I read, there was indeed a real dispute by Harwood over what he did. But again, it was not his propensity to do the actions that was the point, but his "[imens rea[/i", ie his intentions, the [ireasons [/ifor doing them, the explanation for why he did what he indisputably did.

He was not acquitted because it was doubted whether his [iactions [/iconstituted manslaughter. He was acquitted because the prosecution failed to convince the jury beyond reasonable doubt that those indisputable actions, in the particular case of a police officer on duty, were or were not the exercise of reasonable force which a police officer has the right to use. Thus a question of what he believed, not what he did, but why he did it. He claimed he only used what he then judged to be reasonable force. At his trial he said he now accepts he was wrong.

His story was that he believed Tomlinson was being obstructive. He said he turned to reasonable force to make Mr Tomlinson move: a baton strike to the leg, followed by a firm push.

Harwood also told the court that "if he had realised" Tomlinson was walking away from police lines at the time he "would not have gone near him".

''He had his back to me and his legs were moving.
I was faced with several possibilities .... he was walking away ... he was walking backwards ... he was jogging on the spot ... he was crabbing to the left ... he was crabbing to the right.
How the hell was I supposed to know?''

''Actually, I thought he was being too leisurely, you know, hands in pockets, dawdling ... so I thought ..........right mate, have some of this pent-up frustration!''

That seems to be about the gist of it

It's a wonder he didn't just admit to the jury that 'red mist mode' suddenly came over him.
Seems it was a good enough excuse for his superiors in the past!

Truth is, only the people involved know all the facts of Tomlinson's previous behaviour so it isn't relevant to this particular tragedy, it's just the scum bag press pouring petrol on a fire. Hitting someone on the leg and then giving him a good shove, wouldn't normally lead to anything more than maybe bruising. To me it seems a rotten, horrible event in which everyone involved is some sort of victim. As for the riot car killers, the judge blamed evidence given by a detective as being close to perjury, in that he had lied about the fact that witnesses for the prosecution had been offered immunity from prosecution, subsequently telling the jury that they should regard what these witnesses had said with suspicion. This wiped out the prosecution case. What surprises me is that there hasn't been a bigger outcry over this.

No. Not in anyway shape or form. The victim is dead. The Police Officer who assaulted a member of the public and got away with it is not a victim.

[url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jul/22/observer-editorial-police-reforms-must-go-far?mobile-redirect=falseAn Observer editorial from 22 July that seems to hit the spot[/url

In a sad postscript to the case, the original idiot pathologist, Freddy Patel, already suspended for dishonesty in his findings, has been found "not fit to practise", the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service said he had "brought the profession into disrepute" and said his integrity could not be relied upon. He also breached one of the "fundamental tenets of the profession" through his dishonesty, it said.
[urlhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19334292[/url

[url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/policeman-cleared-of-ian-tomlinsons-g20-killing-simon-harwood-to-face-disciplinary-hearing-8069619.htmlHarwood to face Met Police disciplinary[/url

Is it possible for anyone to evade a disciplinary by resigning, and then applying for their job back later on when the fuss has died down, I wonder?

Nah!!!

That would be wholly immoral and our police service would have strict procedures in place to make sure that course of action was totally inconceivable.

I thought you'd have had at least one bite by now

I was gonna do this ...



... but thought better of it ...

Sacked for gross misconduct, but allowed to keep his pension.

Nice.

[urlhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19620627[/url

If you had contributed to a pension scheme at your company and then got the push for a serious incident, would you think it ok to lose all your pension. He has lost his job (quite rightly) and any future pension he might have got.

I believe he would have lost his pension rights if he'd have been convicted of the crime with which he was charged. So legally, you're correct, he is still entitled. The greater powers would be better looking into why an officer who retired on ill health from one force, whilst under investigation, was then re-employed by another.

I assume that he was given a medical and proved fit to return, which has no bearing on his offence. We have to accept the the decision of the jury and the rules that apply with regards to the pension on dismissal, he did not put them in place and until they are changed we have to lump it.

Aye, and his pension might come in handy if the family of the deceased partake in a civil action that produces a positive verdict?