ian tomlinson

[DirtyEddie]

It is the medical evidence that doesn't stack up. Three different post mortems and two different causes of death.
No prosepct of a successful prosecution. Any half decent defence lawyer would have had a field day.
Has to be the same rule for everyone. You can't invent a particluar law just because its a police officer involved

this is partly true. the first post mortem was a fuck up by a disgraced doctor:
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/politics/domestic_politics/pathologist+faces+misconduct+charges/3716682" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/p ... es/3716682</a>
however to say because he fucked the first post mortem up then a prosecution would be impossible is wrong: he fucked up the sally white post mortem and yet her killer was still tried and convicted.

the decision of the cps is laughable. could you imagine a situation where a police officer was killed in this manner and someone not being brought to trial? it wouldn't happen.<br /><br />-- Fri Jul 23, 2010 7:32 pm --<br /><br />by the way i was reading the sun at work today and the story they had on this surprised me, usually you would expect the sun to back the police to the hilt but i thought it was a very reasonable arcitle. of course like most of the media they have ignored the fact that the first post mortem was carried out by a disgraced doctor but never the less i thought it was quite interesting how its playing out in the media.

 

[Franny Lee's Barrel Chest]

Chick Counterfly: a balls up. once again justice is not seen to be done. the very least the public and his family deserve is to have their case heard, for all the details to be placed on the public record.

Whilst you're quite right in what you suggest, the plain facts are that this isn't the way the system works. The CPS have to believe that there is a realistic prospect of a conviction for manslaughter. Owing to the burden to prove this case, the CPS cannot be sure that the cop would be found guilty (or plead guilty) so they have no choice but to take no further criminal action. With regard to the other possible offences, unfortunately if they have timed out, then again, that's regrettable.

That said, there is nothing to stop a private prosecution from ensuing, particularly as the proof needed is only on the balance of probabilities, and with a decent barrister (quite likely someone like Michael Mansfield who deals with a lot of high profile cases) then there is every chance that the Met Police, or even the cop himself will be held to account.

There is also the police misconduct procedure, which, again, is based on the balance of probabilities. So it could well be the case that the cop finds himself the subject of disciplinary proceedings as a result of this case.

 

[Flixton blue]

Chick Counterfly: a balls up. once again justice is not seen to be done. the very least the public and his family deserve is to have their case heard, for all the details to be placed on the public record.

Whilst you're quite right in what you suggest, the plain facts are that this isn't the way the system works. The CPS have to believe that there is a realistic prospect of a conviction for manslaughter. Owing to the burden to prove this case, the CPS cannot be sure that the cop would be found guilty (or plead guilty) so they have no choice but to take no further criminal action. With regard to the other possible offences, unfortunately if they have timed out, then again, that's regrettable.

That said, there is nothing to stop a private prosecution from ensuing, particularly as the proof needed is only on the balance of probabilities, and with a decent barrister (quite likely someone like Michael Mansfield who deals with a lot of high profile cases) then there is every chance that the Met Police, or even the cop himself will be held to account.

There is also the police misconduct procedure, which, again, is based on the balance of probabilities. So it could well be the case that the cop finds himself the subject of disciplinary proceedings as a result of this case.

There is everything to stop a private prosecution happening. The Tomlinson's are not a rich family and they can't afford the legal bill neccessary to bring this kind of case. Also do you not think it's a little bit fishy that the CPS managed to drag this out for so long knowing full well that lesser and more achievable charges would be time-barred by this point. What do the CPS know now that they didn't know a few weeks or months after the incident? Surely the impact of the contradictory post mortem reports was grasped right from the start?