There should have been criminal charges brought over the death of Ian Tomlinson

Ian Tomlinson was a newspaper seller who was hit by a policeman during the G20 protests. He died shortly afterwards. However, the policeman responsible has not been prosecuted. However, the metropolitan police has said that he likely to be sacked for his actions.

There should have been criminal charges brought over the death of Ian Tomlinson

Yes because... No because...

The policeman's actions resulted in Mr Tomlinson's death

Mr Tomlinson was an innocent newspaper seller who was not involved in the G20 protests. The actions of one police office resulted in him either having an heart attack or suffering from internal bleeding. He died soon after.

There is evidence showing what happened that day to Mr Tomlinson. The police office was filmed hitting Mr Tomlinson with a baton and pushing him to the ground. This police office has so far escaped criminal prosecution.

There are two reasons for this: the length of delay after the incident. The protests occurred in April last year and the conflicting medical evidence. There is disagreement over what contributed to Mr Tomlinson's death.

Despite the disagreements, there is evidence to show that Mr Tomlinson was at least assalted. The person responsible walks free.

[[http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2010/07/22/g20-death-where-error-is-irreparable-repentance-is-useless/]]

The actions taken by the police officer were a normal part of his duty and he should not be held personally responsible for them. Protests often turn violent, and pre-emptive action is necessary to clear streets and to show force.

The consequences of this particular officers actions were tragic, but Tomlinson's death was caused by police tactics and not one officers decision.

There should have been criminal charges brought over the death of Ian Tomlinson

Yes because... No because...

The Metropolitan Police have now said that the policeman responsible could face the sack

The policeman has been accused of gross misconduct. These misconduct proceedings will be held in public. The family of Mr Tomlinson welcomed the decision.

Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir Paul Stephenson said: "It is right and proper that we do move swiftly with those misconduct proceedings.

"It is also right that there is a full public exposure of the facts at the inquest and this will now be a matter for the coroner."

It has taken over fifteen months to for the Metropolitan police to take action.

Describing the events of the day Mr Tomlinson died the crown prosecution stated that one of the police officers struck Mr Tomlinson in the left thigh and then "pushed him strongly" in his back. Mr Tomlinson fell forwarded and was not able to cushion his fall as he had his hands in his pocket.

The police office responsible should have been sacked straight away.

References: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/pc-could-face-sack-over-ian-tomlinson-g20-death-2036607.html http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/press_releases/128_10/

There should have been criminal charges brought over the death of Ian Tomlinson

Yes because... No because...

Mr Tomlinson was an innocent man

Like Jean Charles de Menzes, Ian Tomlinson was innocent. He was in the wrong place at the wrong time. The police have made fatal errors that have resulted in their deaths. But, no-one is prosecuted for their crimes. It seems as if the police are above the law.

PC Simon Harwood struck Mr Tomlinson with his baton without provocation. To make matters worse the Metropolitan police had lied to Mr Tomlinson's family and the media about his death.

The independent police complaints commission looked at the case and stated that there was enough evidence to prosecute Mr Harwood for manslaughter.

But, why has he not be prosecuted? He caused a man's death through his selfish actions.

References: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2010/jul/23/ian-tomlinson-ruling-fight-whitewash

The guilt or innocence of Mr Tomlinson, of any offence, is absolutely irrelevant to the question of PC Simon Harwood's actions.

The CPS should not decide whether to prosecute on the basis of the back story of the alleged victim, but the likelihood of securing a conviction.

There should have been criminal charges brought over the death of Ian Tomlinson

Yes because... No because...

There has a 'cover up'

There was conflicting medical evidence presented at the hearing. One of those who presented evidence was Dr Freddy Patel. His results of the first autopsy carried out on Mr Tomlinson's body helped the Crown Prosection Service to come to it's final decision not to prosecute Pc Harwood.

Why was Mr Patel chosen to carry out the autopsy? According to George Monbiot in the Guardian newspaper, Mr Patel is facing a disciplinary hearing of the General Medical Council for alleged incompetence in 26 cases[[http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2010/jul/23/ian-tomlinson-ruling-fight-whitewash]].

Mr Patel came to the conclusion that Mr Tomlinson died of natural causes but only after changing his notes. He found three litres of fluid in Mr Tomlinson's abdominal cavity. He first stated that this was blood but changed his mind to state that it was something else.

Further autopsies carried out by other pathologists, came to the different conclusion that Mr Tomlinson died from internal bleeding after hitting the pavement.

Debates > There should have been criminal charges brought over the death of Ian Tomlinson
Category: