Ian Tomlinson

Ian Tomlinson killer walks off scotch free, has previous form

Ian Tomlinson, Policing
Published on 3 Comments on Ian Tomlinson killer walks off scotch free, has previous form



It took two years to to even get him before a judge, so it’s no great surprise that Ian Tomlinson’s killer has been acquited:

A policeman has been acquitted of killing Ian Tomlinson during G20 protests in London by striking the 47-year-old bystander with a baton and pushing him to the ground as he walked away from police lines.

The jury at Southwark crown court on Thursday cleared PC Simon Harwood, 45, a member of the Metropolitan police’s elite public order unit, the Territorial Support Group, of manslaughter following one of the most high-profile cases of alleged police misconduct in recent years.

Harwood told the court that while in retrospect he “got it wrong” in seeing Tomlinson as a potentially threatening obstruction as police cleared a pedestrian passageway in the City on the evening of 1 April 2009, his actions were justifiable within the context of the widespread disorder of that day.

Speaking outside the court, the Tomlinson family said: “It’s not the end, we are not giving up for justice for Ian.” They said they would now pursue a civil case.

It remains hard to convict a copper of anything, especially things done “in the line of duty”, even when said copper has previous form:

The jury at Southwark crown court, who took four days to clear PC Simon Harwood of manslaughter on a majority verdict, was not told that the officer had been investigated a number of other times for alleged violence and misconduct.

Harwood quit the Metropolitan police on health grounds in 2001, shortly before a planned disciplinary hearing into claims that while off-duty he illegally tried to arrest a man in a road rage incident, altering notes retrospectively to justify his actions.

He was nonetheless able to join another force, Surrey, returning to the Met in 2005. In a string of other alleged incidents Harwood was accused of having punched, throttled, kneed or threatened other suspects while in uniform, although only one complaint was upheld.

The Independent Police Complaints Commission described the chain of events around Harwood’s rejoining his old force before becoming part of its elite Territorial Support Group as “simply staggering”.

Emphasis mine. You wonder if the verdict had been the same if the jury had known Harwood had been investigated for assault previously, and was allowed to escape prosecution for it. But of course they were not allowed to know this:

The Metropolitan police attempted to keep the disciplinary record of PC Simon Harwood secret from the family of Ian Tomlinson, the newspaper seller he struck with a baton and pushed to the ground at G20 protests, it can now be reported.

Lawyers for the force tried and failed to argue that disclosing the litany of complaints about Harwood’s conduct would have breached his privacy, saying the officer’s disciplinary history did not have “any relevance” to Tomlinson’s death.

Harwood, 45, who was found not guilty of Tomlinson’s manslaughter on Thursday, had repeatedly been accused of using excessive force during his career, including claims he punched, throttled, kneed and unlawfully arrested people.

The jury in the trial were not told about the history of complaints, despite a submission from the Crown Prosecution Service, which argued that in two of the disciplinary matters he was accused of using heavy-handed tactics against the public “when they presented no threat”.

The application was rejected by the judge, Mr Justice Fulford, who said: “The jury, in effect, would have to conduct three trials.”

The establishment takes care of its own. If this had been an ordinary murder and the suspect had previous form, wouldn’t that have been admitted to court as relevant information? You would think so. Then again, a civilian who had been accused of assault and abuse would not have been allowed to escape prosecution in the first place…

The Ian Tomlinson verdict: will it change anything?

Ian Tomlinson, Jean Charles de Menezes, Policing
Published on

Probably not, thinks septicisle:

As wearingly familiar as this sad tale of changing stories, incompetence and abuses of power is, the real outrage is that the overall cause remains the same. Just as the officers on the morning of the 22nd of July 2005 were briefed that those they were after were “up for it” and ready to commit acts of mass murder, giving the impression that lethal force was permissible even when it hadn’t been authorised, so the police prior to the G20 had made clear just how determined they were to crack down hard on those who were out to smash up the City. We duly saw police medics brandishing batons, those without the first idea how to “safely” use a truncheon flinging it around, and of course, the storming of the entirely peaceful Climate Camp, since found to have been illegal. Ian Tomlinson died both as he was in the wrong place at the wrong time and because he was vulnerable to just such an injury as he received; dozens of others got cracked heads or worse just for daring to take part in a demonstration. It would be nice to think that following such regrettable incidents that future policing would have been rethought, but no, as the example of Alfie Meadows so pungently demonstrates.

I agree. The deaths of Ian Tomlinson and Jean Charles de Menezes before him were the result of a deliberate policy to make the Metropolitian Police more ‘ard and confrontational. In de Menezes case it was the whole anti-terrorism mentality that was to blame, wherein any terrorism suspect is incredibly dangerous and needs to be “taken out” or London would disappear in a mushroom cloud; combine that with the fuckups that happened while de Menezes was under suspicion and you get why he was shot in the head in the metro. From that point of view the fact that he was innocent doesn’t matter; what does is that his exxecution send the message that the Met is serious about terrorism.

With Tomlinson’s death a similar sort of attitude is to blame, one that’s perhaps even more pernicious as this time it wasn’t about keeping London safe from terrorism, but about showing who’s boss in the city: the police or the demonstrators. The Met was and is incredibly aggressive in its policing of political demonstrations because it and its political masters want to discourage them; Tomlinson’s death is a side effect of this.

Without a change in attitude, de Menezes and Tomlinson won’t be the last victims of the Metropolitian Police, but the likelyhood of this change is small.

At last some justice for Ian Tomlinson

Ian Tomlinson, Policing
Published on

Finally, after more than two years, Ian Tomlinson has gotten some justice:

The police officer who attacked Ian Tomlinson at the G20 protests in London in 2009 could be prosecuted for manslaughter after an inquest jury ruled that the newspaper seller was unlawfully killed.

Returning their verdict after three hours of deliberation, jurors said Tomlinson died of internal bleeding in the abdomen after being struck with a baton and pushed to the ground by a police officer.

For legal reasons, the verdict did not name the officer, Metropolitan police constable Simon Harwood.

However, the jury said that “excessive and unreasonable” force was used when he struck the newspaper vendor who “posed no threat”.

The director of public prosecutions, Keir Starmer, immediately said he would “review” his decision last July not year not to prosecute Harwood.

There were shouts of “yes” from Tomlinson’s family when the jury confirmed their belief that the 47-year-old father of nine was unlawfully killed.

The family’s lawyer, Jules Carey, said : “Today’s decision is a huge relief to Mr Tomlinson’s family. To many, today’s verdict will seem like a statement of the blindingly obvious. However, this fails to take account of the significant and many obstacles faced by the family over the last two years to get to this decision.”

If Simon Harwood is prosecuted and convicted of manslaughter, it will be a welcome but rare outcome. Too often, as we’ve seen with Jean Charles de Menezes, the police authorities, including the Crown Prosecution Service, prefer protecting their own over allowing justice to be done.

Murderer of Ian Tomlinson to escape justice

Ian Tomlinson, Jean Charles de Menezes, Policing
Published on



The Crown Prosecution Service dedices not to bother with charging Ian Tomlinson’s killer:

Keir Starmer, the director of public prosecutions, said there was “no realistic prospect” of a conviction, because of a conflict between the postmortem examinations carried out after the death of Ian Tomlinson last year.

The newspaper seller died following the demonstrations on 1 April 2009 in central London. The official account that he died from a heart attack was undermined when the Guardian obtained video footage showing a riot officer striking the 47-year-old with a baton and shoving him to the ground shortly before he collapsed and died.

In a written statement the CPS admitted that there was sufficient evidence to bring a charge of assault against the officer, but claimed a host of technical reasons meant he could not be charged.

Tomlinson’s stepson Paul King, flanked by his mother, Julia, said: “It’s been a huge cover-up and they’re incompetent.”

King said: “He [Starmer] has just admitted on TV that a copper assaulted our dad. But he hasn’t done anything. He’s the man in charge … why hasn’t he charged him?

“They knew that if they dragged this out long enough, they would avoid charges. They knew just what they were doing. They’ve pulled us through a hedge backwards – now we have to go on living our lives.”

Is anybody surprised by this? Has there ever been a high profile case of police murder where the subsequent investigation led to a meaningful conviction, rather than at best a slap on the wrist? Ian Tomlinson, Jean Charles de Menezes, Harry Stanley, going all the way back to Blair Peach or Liddle Towers, ther have always been reasons why a prosecution could not happen or an officer was “punished enough” already. Who watches the watchmen is not just the tagline to that Alan Moore comic but also the single most important question we can ask about the police and justice system. Can we trust the police not to kill is for no reason? Can we trust them not to cover up if own of their own does kill us? Can we trust the justice system to investigate and prosecute, never mind convict a police officer when the worst does happen? So far, the answer to all these questions is no…

Tomlinson died of abdominal bleeding

Ian Tomlinson, Jean Charles de Menezes, Policing
Published on

From the press release issued by the City of London coroners court :

On 9 April 2009 HM Coroner for the City of London opened and adjourned the inquest into the death of Ian Tomlinson. In so doing he received evidence of identification and the provisional findings and opinion as to the medical cause of death from a report prepared by the consultant forensic pathologist, Dr F Patel, instructed by HM Coroner to conduct the post-mortem examination. The pathologist’s final opinion must await the completion of additional tests.

“Dr F Patel made a number of findings of fact including descriptions of a number of injuries and of diseased organs including the heart and liver. He found a substantial amount of blood in the abdominal cavity. His provisional interpretation of his findings was that the cause of death was coronary artery disease.

“A subsequent post-mortem examination was conducted by another consultant forensic pathologist, Dr N Cary, instructed by the IPCC and by solicitors acting for the family of the late Mr Tomlinson. Dr Cary’s provisional findings and his interpretation of the findings have been provided to HM Coroner in a further preliminary report (the final report once again awaiting the outcome of further tests). Dr Cary’s opinion is that the cause of death was abdominal haemorrhage.

“The cause of the haemorrhage remains to be ascertained. Dr Cary accepts that there is evidence of coronary atherosclerosis but states that in his opinion its nature and extent is unlikely to have contributed to the cause of death. The opinions of both consultant pathologists are provisional and both agree that their final opinions must await the outcome of further investigations and tests. These are likely to take some time. The IPCC’s investigation into the death of Ian Tomlinson is ongoing.”

In other words, the initial verdict of death by heart attack, widely reported even before the first coroner had reported his findings, was a lie. What’s more, the findings of the second report have been held up a week because the Independent Police Complaints Commission was afraid it could prejudice its inquiry. That’s not the end of it: the first pathologist investigating Tomlinson’s death had been reprimanded for his conduct before, once for smearing a black man who had died in police custody, once for diagnosing a murder victim as having died of natural causes, leaving the murderer to kill twice more. Why he was brought in to look at this death is unknown, but might his conduct in the first case have had anything to do with it?

Meanwhile the officer who had attacked Tomlinson minutes for his death, has now been questioned on suspicion of manslaugther. We’ll have to wait to see if anything comes from this, but at least it’s more than Jean Charles de Menezes’ family ever got. What’s also different from the Menezes case is how the media is reporting on Tomlinson’s death, much more critical of the police than they were then.