Fran Legg reflects on a verdict that exposes a system determined to protect its own
The first time I watched the footage of Ian Tomlinson being attacked by a police officer at the G20 protests in April 2009 I felt pure revulsion. That feeling of horror doesn't even come close to what was felt yesterday when, after four days of deliberation, a jury at Southwark Crown Court found PC Simon Harwood 'not guilty' of manslaughter.
I was in Cornhill on the 1st April and I was present, along with others, during some of Ian's final moments. Having refrained from writing about that day for over 3 years for fear of jeopardising a trial, I would now like to comment upon the attack, the subsequent investigation, and a verdict which has proved to be a damning reflection of a system set up to protect its own.
'Heavy handed' doesn't really do justice to the style of policing on the day of the G20 protests. I have memories of people being pushed, kicked and hit by police officers dressed in riot gear from the beginning of the day, and many police officers spoiling for a fight. Whilst trying to make his way home on foot through the city, Ian had been repeatedly denied passage through police lines and had been set-upon by a police dog and bitten on his leg, before being hit with a baton by PC Harwood and pushed to the ground.
As the video footage has shown, Ian had been walking away from Harwood and the police line at the time of the attack, hands in pockets. He was unable to break his fall and landed heavily on his side. Three pathologists later cited internal bleeding as the cause of death, as a result of the impact caused by the fall. The contempt shown for Ian's life by PC Harwood was mirrored to a lesser extent by those officers who witnessed the attack and failed to help Ian to his feet or offer medical assistance.
Details of PC Harwood's disciplinary history, disclosed at pre-inquest and pre-trial hearings but not made public for fear of 'prejudicing' the jury, 'include allegations that he punched, throttled, kneed, threatened and unlawfully arrested people'. During one incident Harwood was alleged to have racially abused a man and his daughter and threatened to burn their house down.
In a separate incident, a fellow officer reported that during a raid on a flat he saw Harwood grab '... a suspect by the throat, punch him twice in the face and push him into a table, causing it to break'. Harwood avoided disciplinary proceedings by resigning due to 'ill health', moving forces and then moving back to the Met. He later joined the Territorial Support Group (TSG), which specialises in public order policing and has a reputation for being institutionally violent.
Just months before the G20 protests, Harwood was found to have unlawfully accessed the police national computer. He 'admitted searching the database to find details of a driver involved in a car accident with his wife' and that the driver's supposed unwillingness to take the situation seriously had sent him into a 'red mist mode'.
Having given evidence to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) in relation to the death of Ian Tomlinson, the revelation that Harwood has a history of tracking down people he feels have aggrieved him is certainly not an easy one to stomach.
Deceit and unaccountability have prevailed throughout these past 3 years. Following Ian's death the Tomlinson family were told by police that Ian had likely been killed by a protester disguised in a police officer's uniform. The police told them that Ian had come under a rain of missiles from protesters as he lay dying on the floor. The family were discouraged from speaking with journalists and to begin with were denied access to see his body.
As the truth began to emerge the IPCC still remained hesitant to fully investigate the case. Under the direction of the City of London Police contested medical evidence was provided by pathologist Dr Freddy Patel. Patel, having removed and disposed of 3 litres of fluid and blood from Ian's abdomen, concluded that Tomlinson had died of natural causes.
His findings were later contradicted by three other pathologists who all agreed that Ian had died from internal bleeding caused by the fall. Patel has since been suspended for falsifying his CV and carrying out botched post-mortems. An initial decision by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) in July 2010 not to charge Harwood of any offence heaped further injustice on to the situation.
Over two years after Ian's death, an inquest ruled he had been unlawfully killed by PC Simon Harwood. The CPS finally bowed to pressure and a charge of manslaughter was brought against Harwood.
Hopes of justice prevailing were repeatedly quashed whenever I attended court. Media restrictions and a fairly toothless prosecution case by the CPS gave all the signs of a system closing ranks around one of its own. The defence was led by a QC who specialises in defending officers involved in deaths in police custody.
Efforts to dehumanise Ian in much of the mainstream media- to portray him as an individual unworthy of our compassion- were reflected in court. The jury were reminded frequently of Tomlinson's drinking problem and of the fact that he sometimes slept rough. The horrible result has been that too many people have become desensitised to the horror of his death and the suffering of his family.
And Ian's case is not an anomaly. In the last 30 years over 1000 people have died either in custody or following contact with the police. Not one officer has been convicted for murder or manslaughter.
My primary motivation in writing this article has been to dispel some of the myths and blatant lies that surround this case. I hope that people go away and dig a bit deeper, read beyond the headlines, and begin to understand the depth and pervasiveness of police brutality and cover-ups.
I'm not sure what happens now. The family have indicated that they will pursue civil proceedings. I and others will help in any way that we can. They have been fighting for the last 3 years and 3 months for some semblance of justice.Their strength, courage and dignity has been an inspiration and I have nothing but respect for them all. Rest in peace Ian, we think about you every day.
For more details of the Ian Tomlinson family's campaign, visit their website.
Related Items
Saturday 22 June 2013
9:30am – 5pm
Central Hall Westminster
Books
How a Century of War Changed the Lives of Women
By Lindsey German
A Marxist History of the World
From Neanderthals to Neoliberals
By Neil Faulkner
The People V Tony Blair
Politics, the Media and the Anti-War Movement
By Chris Nineham
Timelines
A Political History of the Modern World
By John Rees
A People's History of London
By Lindsey German and John Rees
Counterfire Books
The People Demand: A short history of the Arab revolutions
By John Rees and Joseph Daher
Strategy and tactics: how the left can organise to transform society
By John Rees
Capitalism and Class Consciousness: the ideas of Georg Lukacs
By Chris Nineham
Send us your reports
Send images to our Flickr Account via MMS, add this email to your mobile phone's address book: side29doe@photos.flickr.comYouTube
Send videos to our YouTube channel from your mobile, add this email to your mobile phone's address book: rq03qna6q0wa@m.youtube.comTwitpic
Send images via our Twitpic Account via MMS, add this email to your mobile phone's address book: counterfireorg.5808@twitpic.com
Comments
Two points.
Firstly, the article strongly implies that details of the disciplinary record of the officer should have been disclosed. I can understand why you would argue that in light of this verdict, but it is quite wrong.
Imagine if you were ever accused of a serious crime and the prosecution could use your disciplinary record at work against you. It would seriously violate the principle that they have to prove the case against you for this offence, regardless of your record at work. In some cases now, I think, the prosecution can make representations to tell the jury about previous convictions of the accused - a massively violation of democratic rights and something the left should oppose trenchantly.
Secondly, one of the things that is rarely discussed on the left is the cultural problem; that police have a certain standing and authority in our society and that juries are often inclined to take their word for things. This doesn't always happen - look at the inquest verdict - but it underlines the challenge we face to shift attitudes in wider society.
I would be interested to hear more about what the flaws were in the prosecution case. If the CPS didn't prosecute it effectively then they are negligent, and need to be held to account, something we could campaign on and develop, but obviously we would need to prove it.
One of the most shocking things about this case is all the video evidence if Harwood attacking people on G20 demonstration before hitting Tomlinson in the back.
Am I right in thinking the strongest argument that the defence had that might have swung it for the jury was element of "doubt" over cause of death? Despite three separate pathologist reports. Seems incredible but hard to believe any other arguments apart from that could have over-ridden all of the video evidence prosecution had.
Cheers, Luke
The article is questioning why Harwood could possibly hold onto his job with such a damning 'disciplinary record;.
Further to that, by your logic all evidence of Harwood hitting other protesters on the same day should also be withheld as none of them were Tomlinson himself. Furthermore, there is evidence (video evidence) of Harwood striking and pushing to the ground a man who is walking away from him with hands in his pockets.
Surely the 'priors' in this case amount to circumstantial evidence. How else to prove intent? It seems that where 'character', intent/motivation, judgement etc are to be assessed, such prior records are crucial. He claims he had to think on his feet and make a snap judgement, yet he clearly has record of making similar judgements, and we've all heard the 'red mist' story which he admits to. An argument for making representation of his record to the jury in my opinion.
I think it's clear where 'violations' took place in this case and how they could have been prevented.
This ruling is designed to protect the guilty. Take a rape case for example. Say the rapist has five previous complaints for rape, three resulted in no action, and two prosecutions without conviction.
None of this can be told to a jury although it is actually on the public record. However the victim, can be cross examined on her previous sexual history to show a pre-disposition to casual sex. Hardly equitable justice.
Juries should be allowed to hear facts and everything on Harwood's record (proven or not) is a matter of record. What I am saying is the fact a complaint may have been made and no action taken, the complaint was made and it is a matter of public record. That is a fact.
Juries are not stupid (although sometimes their conclusions may seem like it). They should have been allowed to decide if Harwood's history showed any pre-disposition to violent act's beyond 'necessary force'.
I think it was supposed to prevent the police trawling through suspect lists and presenting baseless cases before a jury who might then convict the accused on the basis of their record – and a mistaken assumption that the police wouldn’t have brought the case with little evidence. There is a risk of convicting the innocent if this were allowed.
However in this case, the evidence that Harwood assaulted Tomlinson was not disputed, and was even on camera! As I understand it, the jury was given the excuse of the chaos of the events of the day backed up by police misinformation. Against such excuses presented as mitigation, Harwood’s record was fair game and crucially, as it related to interpretation of his actions, would not have resulted in a wrong decision about the objective facts. It should surely therefore have been presented!?
The judge’s reason for disallowing this evidence was different: he ruled that admitting this evidence would in effect mean the jury having to "conduct three trials". Does this even make sense? A trial verdict is submitted relative to the standard of “reasonable doubt” – but it is hard to imagine how this standard could apply to witness statements. When judges receive background reports, they don’t consider they are conducting a ‘trial’ of the conclusions. The jury were allowed to hear a discredited report from a struck-off pathologist (whose status wasn’t revealed to the jury) which claimed Tomlinson died of natural causes. It’s hard not to think the evidence allowed to be put before the jury was subject to bias in favour of the police.
As the police (especially the Met) knew all about the serious risk Harwood posed to the public, isn’t there a simpler charge of corporate manslaughter against them? Harwood was allowed to escape disciplinary action by resigning his Met post on health grounds and joining another force, then later transferring back to the Met. The unconvincing argument about 'prejudicing trials with the facts’ disappears altogether, if those in the dock actually had those facts already.
RSS feed for comments to this post