G20 Death: Officer 'Guilty' Of Gross Misconduct

#1
It's not in the Last 50 forum updates, so here goes:

The police officer cleared of killing a newspaper seller during the G20 protests has been found guilty of gross misconduct by a disciplinary panel. PC Simon Harwood hit Ian Tomlinson with his baton and shoved him to the ground in the City of London in April 2009. The 47-year-old managed to walk about 75 metres before he collapsed and later died from internal bleeding.

Harwood was acquitted of manslaughter in July but the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) said he should face a public Metropolitan Police disciplinary hearing.

The hearing heard that Harwood had acknowledged his actions amounted to gross misconduct and had twice offered his resignation, which Scotland Yard refused to accept.

From G20 Death: Officer 'Guilty' Of Gross Misconduct - Yahoo! News UK
 
#2
So, according to the inquest jury, Tomlinson was 'unlawfully killed' by Harwood; occording to the trial jury, Tomlinson wasn't unlawfully killed by Harwood, and according to the Met, Tomlinson was killed in a grossly misconductful way by Harwood.

So that's as clear as mud, then.
 

Wordsmith

LE
Book Reviewer
#3
The hearing heard that Harwood had acknowledged his actions amounted to gross misconduct and had twice offered his resignation, which Scotland Yard refused to accept.
Something to do with resigning looking slightly better on the CV than being sacked?

Wordsmith
 
#4
Something to do with resigning looking slightly better on the CV than being sacked?

Wordsmith
God forbid he'd apply for another force with a clean sheet. I mean, who would have the nerve to do that?
 
#8
#9
God forbid he'd apply for another force with a clean sheet. I mean, who would have the nerve to do that?
I feel that he has seen the last days of wearing the uniform. Thankfully for the public and most of all for the family of the victim.
 
#11
My name's GrandMaster Flash, and don't push me 'cause I'm close to the edge
 
#12
I presume the attempt at resignation had more to do with retaining some form of pension, although it would also look better than "sacked" on his CV.

In some ways, I feel he's been made a bit of a scapegoat by the Met. The jury trial found him not guilty of manslaughter. In my opinion, that should be enough. It's the same as the old section 69A. If you end up in court, you end up in front of the CO too for bringing the army into disrepute. I never agreed with that one, and still don't.

It seems the family of the deceased want to keep pushing this. The cynic in me says it has nothing to do with justice, but how much they can get from the Met:
"The family's solicitor, Jules Carey, said: They want it to be determined finally whether or not PC Harwood is guilty as an employee of the police of killing Ian Tomlinson." Why add the "employee of the police"? Surely they just want him found guilty as an individual?
 
#13
Why add the "employee of the police"? Surely they just want him found guilty as an individual?
'Cos they want the money; it's like a win on the lottery.

My Dad is a right **** and I couldn't care less if he lives or dies, but if some copper beat him to death I'd be in there like a motherfucker to score a couple of hundred grand. Wouldn't you?
 
#14
'Cos they want the money; it's like a win on the lottery.

My Dad is a right **** and I couldn't care less if he lives or dies, but if some copper beat him to death I'd be in there like a motherfucker to score a couple of hundred grand. Wouldn't you?
Yes, but that was my point. All this "woe is me" winds me up!
 
#15
The Newspaper seller was an alcoholic (allegedly ).

He was in the wrong place at the wrong time and drunk (allegedly).

Because of brusque treatment as he got in the way, he had a (or is it an?) heart attack.(fact)

Also, what hmmm says !
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
#17
I feel that he has seen the last days of wearing the uniform. Thankfully for the public and most of all for the family of the victim.
yes for the public but nothing will bring the old fellah back, it just looked so unnecessary!
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
#18
'Cos they want the money; it's like a win on the lottery.

My Dad is a right **** and I couldn't care less if he lives or dies, but if some copper beat him to death I'd be in there like a motherfucker to score a couple of hundred grand. Wouldn't you?
I admit that I would struggle there, I have very little idea where the bastard is, mind you I wont queue to dance on his grave!
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
#19
Just be thankful he wasnt a scouser, we wouldnt hear the end of it!
 
#20
So, according to the inquest jury, Tomlinson was 'unlawfully killed' by Harwood; occording to the trial jury, Tomlinson wasn't unlawfully killed by Harwood, and according to the Met, Tomlinson was killed in a grossly misconductful way by Harwood.

So that's as clear as mud, then.
It's all down to the level of proof required to convict. The standard required at in a police disciplinary hearing or at a coroners inquest is the civil, as opposed to the criminal standard of proof - whether the case has been proved 'on the balance of probablities'.

In both these instances, against this level of proof, the inquest jury and the Met diciplinary panel found against him. The trial jury, however, may only convict where they are satisfied that the case has been proven 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. Clearly, they felt that there was a reasonable doubt and aquitted him.
 

New Posts

Top