Coroner says jury would have to be sure police officer's actions had been intentional and dangerous during G20 protests
The jury at the inquest into the death of Ian Tomlinson has been told it can return a verdict of unlawful killing, but only if it is satisfied the police officer who beat him with a baton and shoved him to the ground acted deliberately and illegally.
Judge Peter Thornton QC, sitting as assistant deputy coroner, said the jury of six men and five women would have to be sure beyond reasonable doubt that PC Simon Harwood's actions had been intentional and dangerous during the G20 protests in central London two years ago..
Thornton said the jury could also consider verdicts of misadventure, death from natural causes and an open verdict. He said they would have to decide whether the 47-year-old newspaper vendor died from internal bleeding or a heart attack.
Although Harwood ? a member of the Metropolitan police's territorial support group ? initially claimed he had hit and shoved Tomlinson because he was "being defiant" and "encroaching" on a police line. But he conceded this was not the case when confronted with footage of the encounter.
"PC Harwood said that [Tomlinson] was not a threat to him or any other officer," said the coroner in his summing-up. "In evidence PC Harwood said his perception at the time was significantly different to what the CCTV camera footage shows ?
"s his perception, as he puts it, an honest mistaken perception of events, or is it an untruthful account of events put forward as a deliberate lie to try to excuse his actions? You will have to decide."
Thornton asked the jury to consider whether the force used in either the baton strike or the subsequent push was reasonable or excessive and illegal.
"If you are sure that either a heart attack caused by stress from the baton strike and/or the fall or [an] injury from the push or fall causing internal bleeding were proved, you would find [one of the requirements for unlawful killing] proved," he said.
Turning to the medical evidence, the coroner said the jury would have to decide exactly how Tomlinson died.
"[He] was more vulnerable than a normal person as a result of a number of factors" they include his diseased liver, his alcoholism, his input of alcohol that day and the condition of his left shoulder," Thornton said.
"But at the same time, the police officer [had] a duty to [protect] the more vulnerable, and also the mere fact that Mr Tomlinson was vulnerable cannot excuse the police officer from an unlawful act."
He reminded the jurors that they had heard two very different explanations of Tomlinson's death. Dr Freddy Patel, the Home Office pathologist who initially examined Tomlinson's body, had concluded he died as a result of a spontaneous heart attack, but other medical experts had suggested the cause had been internal bleeding. Patel had later made a number of important changes to his evidence.
"Is there a good reason for these changes which justifies and supports his original cause of death, or is his credibility as an expert witness no longer intact?" asked the coroner.
Although the jury had been told that Patel had been removed from the Home Office register of experts and is suspended for failings in cases unrelated to Tomlinson's death, Thornton urged them to "not put this aspect of the case out of all proportion".
He reminded the jury that no one was on trial. "There is no indictment, no criminal charge ? it is simply a way of establishing facts," he said.
"Come to your decision coolly and calmly and on the evidence. Your duty is to find the facts and conclude from the evidence, and from nothing else."
The inquest is expected to retire next Tuesday to consider its verdict.
Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/apr/28/ian-tomlinson-inquest-jury-verdict
Middle East Gareth Barry Children Liberal-Conservative coalition Nepal Insects
No comments:
Post a Comment