Electricians Beware!

[JohnW2]

If the coroner had ruled accidental death and the jury acquitted him of manslaughter, he would still have been guilty of conduct which briught discredit to the met. That's what the enquiry was looking at. The legal proceedings were separate issues and the fact he was acquitted was irrelevant.

Exactly. Had he been found guilty of manslaughter, he obviously would have automatically lost his job, However, he was sacked (for his clearly unacceptable behaviour) even though he was acquitted of manslaughter - which strikes me as 'the system working'.

As I wrote to BAS this afternoon, although his behaviour/actions clearly were unacceptable, the manslaughter acquittal may have been appropriate - if the jury felt that his actions, although unacceptable, were not ones which could be reasonably be expected to result in death or serious injury. What does surprise me a little is that he was not also charged with (and convicted of) some more minor 'back-up offence' (e.g. assault).

Kind Regards, John

 

[Astra99]

Bear in mind that at his trial, the jury were not told of his previous record of disciplinary actions for what was basically thuggery. However, with the video/photographic record of the event, which we all saw on TV, I fail to see how the jury acquitted him. It is clear his actions were disproportionate to the point of recklessness. I wonder if the jury feared that to convict might have had the effect of hamstringing the police (but to a greater degree than "political correctness" and "perceived racism" has done) thus preventing them from doing their job full stop. Had the jury known of Harwood's disciplinary record, I am sure the verdict would have been very different.

 

[scousespark]

If the coroner had ruled accidental death

The Coroner ruled 'unlawful killing'.

and the jury acquitted him of manslaughter, he would still have been guilty of conduct which briught discredit to the met. That's what the enquiry was looking at.

Yes.

The legal proceedings were separate issues and the fact he was acquitted was irrelevant.

Not quite irrelevant.
He was the cause of an unlawful killing.
Plus his past behaviour.

The hearing was expected to last four weeks but was over in a day.

I feel the result is more a consequence of the timing.
After the Hillsborough outcome last week the powers that be realise they have to be seen to be doing something.

Monday's hearing was told PC Harwood had twice offered to resign from the Met over the incident. But an officer who is suspended can only leave the force with the approval of the deputy commissioner.

Consequently, because he has not been convicted of an offence, he gets to keep his pension.

I know it was ruled unlawful. I was pointing out that even if it hadn't been, Harwood would still have faced this enquiry. He was sacked for losing control and assaulting the poor bloke.

His past history was not relevant, as it was over 2 years before the single incident which (on its own was enough to finish him). If he had been found guilty of manslaughter, he would have lost his pension. The case was over so quickly because he put his hands up and the dismissal was the limit of punishment available to the panel.

 

[JohnW2]

Bear in mind that at his trial, the jury were not told of his previous record of disciplinary actions for what was basically thuggery.

Rightly so, I would say, wouldn't you?

However, with the video/photographic record of the event, which we all saw on TV, I fail to see how the jury acquitted him. It is clear his actions were disproportionate to the point of recklessness.

I agree that his actions were 'disproportionate to the point of recklessness' - but, as I've been trying to explain, that, in itself, does not necessarily make him guilty of manslaughter.

I wonder if the jury feared that to convict might have had the effect of hamstringing the police ...

Possibly. However, they may have looked at his actions and decided that, disproportionate though they were, they did not represent a degree of violence that would normally be expected to result in death or serious injury - in which case they would be unable to convict. As I've been saying, if I can get a look at the judge's Summing Up, things may become much clearer.

Had the jury known of Harwood's disciplinary record, I am sure the verdict would have been very different.

That's very possibly true - but many people (and our judicial system) would probably have regarded that as a serious 'travesty of justice'. Whether or not someone is judged guilty of a current crime is meant to be based entirely on the facts of the case, and not be influenced by things in the past.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Whether or not someone is judged guilty of a current crime is meant to be based entirely on the facts of the case, and not be influenced by things in the past.

Which is sometimes wrong, because sometimes a history of multiple offences, often of the same nature, can indeed tip the balance of "beyond reasonable doubt".

 

[JohnW2]

Whether or not someone is judged guilty of a current crime is meant to be based entirely on the facts of the case, and not be influenced by things in the past.

Which is sometimes wrong, because sometimes a history of multiple offences, often of the same nature, can indeed tip the balance of "beyond reasonable doubt".

It could, indeed, sway a jury's feelings about 'reasonable doubt, but' not necessarily correctly - which is the very reason why they are not allowed to have (or to take into account) the history of the accused person.

Don't forget that the police and CPS do have access to that information, and may already have made the same mistake, by bringing to trial someone with a 'suspicious history' without a very strong actual case against him/her; depriving a jury of that same potential bias is thus a valuable safeguard.

In any event, as I keep saying, I very much doubt that any of this is relevant to the case we're discussing. Particularly given the video evidence, I very much doubt that there was significant dispute about what the police officer actually did - so his history becomes irrelevent. As I've said, I suspect that the jury will have been instructed along the lines that the only decision they had to make was the 'technical' one as to whether or not the level of violence (observed on video) was such that there would be a reasonable expectation that it would result in death or serious injury - and the defendant's past history is obviously totally irrelevant to that judgement/decision.

Kind Regards, John