No charges in G20 death of Ian Tomlinson - Pc Harwood found not guilty.

[MrSmith]

Itll go to appeal.

 

I don't think it can go to apreal.

[Eckolad]

I don't think it can go to apreal.

 

New laws were brought which brought to an end the old rule that someone could not be charged twice for the same crime (double jeopody)

 

But this is only for a few specified serious offences, which ones they are i am not sure.

 

From Wiki

 

[edit]England and Wales

Double jeopardy has been permitted in England and Wales in certain (exceptional) circumstances since the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

[edit]Pre-2003

The doctrines of autrefois acquit and autrefois convict persisted as part of the common law from the time of the Norman conquest of England; they were regarded as essential elements of protection of the liberty of the subject and respect for due process of law in that there should be finality of proceedings.[1] There were only three exceptions, all relatively recent, to the rules:

The prosecution has a right of appeal against acquittal in summary cases if the decision appears to be wrong in law or in excess of jurisdiction.[20]

A retrial is permissible if the interests of justice so require, following appeal against conviction by a defendant.[21]

A "tainted acquittal", where there has been an offence of interference with, or intimidation of, a juror or witness, can be challenged in the High Court.[22]

In Connelly v DPP ([1964] AC 1254), the Law Lords ruled that a defendant could not be tried for any offence arising out of substantially the same set of facts relied upon in a previous charge of which he had been acquitted, unless there are "special circumstances" proven by the prosecution. There is little case law on the meaning of "special circumstances", but it has been suggested that the emergence of new evidence would suffice.[23]

A defendant who had been convicted of an offence could be given a second trial for an aggravated form of that offence if the facts constituting the aggravation were discovered after the first conviction.[24] By contrast, a person who had been acquitted of a lesser offence could not be tried for an aggravated form even if new evidence became available.[25]

[edit]Post-2003

Following the murder of Stephen Lawrence, the Macpherson Report recommended that the double jeopardy rule should be abrogated in murder cases, and that it should be possible to subject an acquitted murder suspect to a second trial if "fresh and viable" new evidence later came to light. The Law Commission later added its support to this in its report "Double Jeopardy and Prosecution Appeals" (2001). A parallel report into the criminal justice system by Lord Justice Auld, a past Senior Presiding Judge for England and Wales, had also commenced in 1999 and was published as the Auld Report six months after the Law Commission report. It opined that the Law Commission had been unduly cautious by limiting the scope to murder and that "the exceptions should [...] extend to other grave offences punishable with life and/or long terms of imprisonment as Parliament might specify."[26]

These recommendations were implemented—not uncontroversially at the time—within the Criminal Justice Act 2003,[27][28] and this provision came into force in April 2005.[29] It opened certain serious crimes (including murder, manslaughter, kidnapping, rape, armed robbery, and serious drug crimes) to a retrial, regardless of when committed, with two conditions: the retrial must be approved by the Director of Public Prosecutions, and the Court of Appeal must agree to quash the original acquittal due to "new and compelling evidence".[30] Pressure by Ann Ming, the mother of 1989 murder victim Julie Hogg—whose killer, William Dunlop, was initially acquitted in 1991 and subsequently confessed—also contributed to the demand for legal change.[31][32]

On 11 September 2006, Dunlop became the first person to be convicted of murder following a prior acquittal for the same crime, in his case his 1991 acquittal of Julie Hogg's murder. Some years later he had confessed to the crime, and was convicted of perjury, but was unable to be retried for the killing itself. The case was re-investigated in early 2005, when the new law came into effect, and his case was referred to the Court of Appeal in November 2005 for permission for a new trial, which was granted.[32][33][34] Dunlop pled guilty to murdering Julie Hogg and having sex with her dead body repeatedly, and was sentenced to life imprisonment, with a recommendation he serve no less than 17 years.[35]

On 13 December 2010, Mark Weston became the first person to be retried and found guilty of murder by a jury (Dunlop having confessed). In 1996 Weston had been acquitted of the murder of Vikki Thompson at Ascott-under-Wychwood on 12 August 1995, but following the discovery of compelling new evidence in 2009—Thompson's blood on Weston's boots—he was arrested and tried for a second time. He was sentenced to life imprisonment, to serve a minimum of 13 years.[36]

[taxman]

He should have been charged with assault but the CPS and the initial investigators dragged their feet for so long that the time limit for an assault charge passed.

 

After the inquest verdict the CPS then had to try and save face by charging him with a more serious offence which carried with it a greater prospect of aquittal.

[green]

Dark Arts at play here. CPS & MET are top of that tree.

[Eckolad]

He should have been charged with assault but the CPS and the initial investigators dragged their feet for so long that the time limit for an assault charge passed.

 

After the inquest verdict the CPS then had to try and save face by charging him with a more serious offence which carried with it a greater prospect of aquittal.

 

Yes indeed as the assault charge was summary only and therefore information had to be laid before the magistrates within 6 months.

[green]

Protest organised for 6pm outside Scotland Yard.

 

For those who will undoubtedly why....what for, my question to you is, what is the alternative to showing the injustice of this decision?

[rickiethecat]

The CPS has now changed its mind and PC Simon Harwood is to be charged with manslaughter.

 

PC Harwood found not guilty today.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18900484

 

Clearly the right decision, as anyone who's seen the footage knows, PC Harwood used reasonable force in protecting the public from a potentially violent man. It's a disgrace he was charged in the first place.

[Bypassblade]

For the first time it can be revealed that Harwood has faced a series of allegations of violence and has admitted entering “red mist mode.”

 

Details of his police disciplinary record were ruled inadmissible both at the trial and an inquest last year which found that Mr Tomlinson had been unlawfully killed.

 

The jury was never told that the police officer who struck Ian Tomlinson had faced a series of allegations of violence and has admitted entering "red mist mode".

 

In 12 years from 1997 until his suspension after Mr Tomlinson's death, PC Simon Harwood was subject to 10 complaints.

 

Pity these things are kept back, I mean it is obvious what he did, but he's got off unbelievable.

[Mister M]

For the first time it can be revealed that Harwood has faced a series of allegations of violence and has admitted entering “red mist mode.”

 

Details of his police disciplinary record were ruled inadmissible both at the trial and an inquest last year which found that Mr Tomlinson had been unlawfully killed.

 

The jury was never told that the police officer who struck Ian Tomlinson had faced a series of allegations of violence and has admitted entering "red mist mode".

 

In 12 years from 1997 until his suspension after Mr Tomlinson's death, PC Simon Harwood was subject to 10 complaints.

 

Pity these things are kept back, I mean it is obvious what he did, but he's got off unbelievable.

 

And a nice fat police pension in 10 years time his service to the community. Makes me puke

[rickiethecat]

Protest organised for 6pm outside Scotland Yard.

 

For those who will undoubtedly why....what for, my question to you is, what is the alternative to showing the injustice of this decision?

 

You can jump up and down and stamp your feet all you like but the fact is that a jury who - unlike the police haters on this thread - listened to all the evidence found that PC Harwood used reasonable force in restraining Tomlinson.