An inquest jury has concluded that he was unlawfully killed in a very strong verdict. I am not sure what standard of proof is used to reach such a verdict but I suspect the bar is pretty high, maybe even as high as for a conviction in a criminal trial.
The next step is for the DPP to review the case to see if the police officer involved, Simon Harwood, should be prosecuted and I hope he decides that a prosecution is the right course.
The guidelines for the CPS lay down a two-stage process for the decision to prosecute. The first decision is as to whether or not there is sufficient evidence to offer a better than 50 - 50 chance of a conviction and the CPS usually want a substancially better chance than that. Only if the evidence is deemed to be sufficient to give a good chance of a conviction does the "public interest" test come into play and at this stage the CPS may decide that prosecution is not in the public interest.
In the Tomlinson case I think the guidelines are inadequate. Because of the nature of the events surrounding his death a prosecution of the police officer is clearly very much in the public interest and I believe that prosecution should take place unless the evidence is very clearly inadequate. We need a jury to decide on Harwood's guilt or innocence.
No comments:
Post a Comment