Tomlinson death, PC to be charged

[johncar54]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13519281

Probability of conviction for manslaughter, slim.


The problem is that the first pathologist said it was a heart attack, if it was, then it's no crime, you cant kill someone by natural causes.

Although the other Pathologist/s say otherwise the jury must be satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt that the guy died of an injury and not a heart attack.

A conflict of opinion by the pathologists I think must amount to reasonable doubt as to the cause of death. Thus the unlawful act of pushing him would amount to Actual Bodily Harm at the very most.

Whilst I would not change places with the PC I still think he will get off/ be found not guilty of manslaughter.

I think any discipline action will be delayed until after the criminal trial.

The finding of the jury at the Coroners Court has no bearing on any subsequent trail.

[Bluebirdjones]

Which begs the question as to why was Freddie Patel allowed to be, or designated the forensic pathologist in the case ?

... from Sept 2010....
Dr Mohammed Freddie Patel was found guilty of serious misconduct, irresponsible behaviour and brining the profession into disrepute in three other investigations into suspicious deaths.


In its ruling today, the GMC said it had to maintain public confidence in the profession, and Dr Patel had made no expression of regret in any of the case where his performance was deemed deficient.

The GMC also decided that the pathologist should be barred from carrying out any post mortems in cases of suspicious deaths and be prevented from acting for the defence in homicide cases.


..... so effectively, you could kill someone, get a complacent and irresponsibile, unprofessional pathologist to do the investigation, get him to report the death as natural causes (while disposing of all the samples so no other pathologist can examine them), and get away with it !

[johncar54]

Bluebird.

Patel was at the time a Home office pathologist, nothing to do with the police.

so effectively, you could kill someone, get a complacent and irresponsible, unprofessional pathologist to do the investigation, get him to report the death as natural causes (while disposing of all the samples so no other pathologist can examine them), and get away with it !

It would appear so but, as the police have no say in who is appointed as a pathologist by the Home Office, nor do they have any say in which pathologist will conduct any specific PM, and in most cases all the samples taken during the PM are processed by the Home Office Forensic Labs, whose finding are presented to the court, your idea is more the substance of fiction than possibility.

The fact that Dr Patel continued to be employed by the Home Office when in hindsight he appears to have been 'less than competent' is another question.

[Tawi2]

Hypothetical situation,a member of the public had been filmed attacking Mr Tomlinson resulting in his death instead of a serving police officer,would he have been arrested asap,and would the investigation have dragged on this long?I remember when it happened didnt some high-ranking officer suggest the copper who pushed tomlinson might have been a "Fake":doh cop trying to incite or inflame the protestors :rolleyes: Like I said in another thread,we are in an age of cameras and transparency,otherwise this might have had a totally different outcome :rolleyes:

[johncar54]

Hypothetical situation,a member of the public had been filmed attacking Mr Tomlinson resulting in his death instead of a serving police officer,would he have been arrested asap,and would the investigation have dragged on this long?I remember when it happened didnt some high-ranking officer suggest the copper who pushed tomlinson might have been a "Fake":doh cop trying to incite or inflame the protestors :rolleyes: Like I said in another thread,we are in an age of cameras and transparency,otherwise this might have had a totally different outcome :rolleyes:

If a person assaults another person, and that person is injured or dies AS A RESULT OF THE ASSAULT (not as a result of natural causes, e.g. a heart attack) then I would expect a prosecution to follow.

[Doc Alan]

The Home Office Register of Forensic Pathologists is maintained by the National Policing Improvement Agency and there are only 36 such pathologists for the whole of England and Wales. It takes about 14 years from becoming a doctor to registration - training being rigorous and controlled by the Royal College of Pathologists and GMC (Postgraduate Medical Education and Training Board).
Of the 500,000 deaths each year in England and Wales, about half are referred to a Coroner, and in half of those the Coroner orders an autopsy ( post mortem examination). In the vast majority, these are performed by hospital pathologists and the cause of death is natural.
The Coroner decides, if the circumstances as reported by the police are suspicious, to ask a Home Office pathologist to conduct an autopsy. The original Coroner in the Tomlinson case, Prof Paul Matthews (who subsequently stood down) called in Dr Patel. Had the DPP brought charges against the police officer then, and called Dr Patel, justice would not have been done, since he had concluded "natural causes".
Now that the inquest has concluded "unlawful killing" in the light of new evidence, the DPP was better informed and justice is more likely for Tomlinson's bereaved family.
There are serious questions as to why Dr Patel was allowed to continue practising - an independent panel for the GMC has imposed a period of suspension, supervision and mentoring. A GMC fitness to practise panel will review his case at the end of July.
Thirty six forensic pathologists for England and Wales is not enough, their training is long and demanding, and their work involves antisocial hours. Of course there are "complacent, irresponsible, unprofessional" doctors - Harold Shipman is an example - as in other professions. But we should be grateful that justice is done in most suspicious deaths thanks to the minority of doctors who choose this specialty.

[branno]

one of the points is... if my foot steps from behind sound threatening... do you have a right to turn round and strike me... albeit unknowing that i may have a condition.. if u suspect i may be going to attack you... only because my footsteps are pacefull.. ?

[branno]

there are many points of law... for instance... footsteps may sound menacing to some one walking home on a lovely summers evening.. but if u find them threatening just by the sound of them next to you.. you do have a right to turn around and strike that person whom u deem to be threatening.. even tho there is no intent..

[branno]

and that police constable shud be charged with unlawful muder.. .. :xxgrinning--00xx3:

[johncar54]

and that police constable shud be charged with unlawful muder.. .. :xxgrinning--00xx3:

Murder is the unlawful killing of a person WITH INTENT to kill or cause serious injury.

It would appear, from what I have read in the media the correct charge in this case is manslaughter (of course what ones reads depends on the particular source of info which one has access to, i.e. they often vary considerably).

However, the prosecution I believe will have considerable difficulty convincing a jury that a verdict of guilty should be returned. But lets wait and see.


On a general point. In UK everyone has the right to use REASONABLE force to protect themselves, to protect others, or to protect property. Each case is decided upon the circumstances, thus even in cases of Homicide the force can be deemed REASONABLE (I have person knowledge of one such case in Rotherhithe, London in about 1967))