Let me introduce you to the offence of Misconduct in Public Office.
It is a "common law" offence, which means it was not created by statute.
It is not prosecuted very often, but the elements of the offence are as follows:
1. A public officer acting as such.
2. Wilfully neglects to perform his duty and/or wilfully misconducts himself.
3. To such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public's trust in the office holder.
4. Without reasonable excuse or justification.
The CPS guidance on the offence is here.
You will note that this guidance states:
"for example, an assault by a police officer committed while on duty could also arguably be misconduct in public office"
Last week, the Crown Prosecution Service decided not to charge Simon Harwood with (amongst other offences) Misconduct in Public Office in respect of the death of Ian Tomlinson.
See this video for the circumstances of Mr Tomlinson's encounter with Mr Harwood, a thug and a disgrace to the police force.
Sickening.
In regard to the decision not to charge for the offence of Misconduct in Public Office, the CPS decision was as follows:
The CPS also considered the offence of misconduct in public office. The offence is committed when a public officer acting as such wilfully neglects to perform his duty and/or wilfully misconducts himself to such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public's trust in the office holder without reasonable excuse or justification. The offence is, in essence, one of abuse of the power or responsibilities of the office held.
The offence of misconduct in public office cannot simply be used as a substitute for other offences and simply being a police officer who commits a criminal offence, even one of assault, does not, without some other aggravating factor, automatically amount to the offence of misconduct in public office. Mr Tomlinson's death would be an aggravating feature, but for the reasons already stated, the prosecution cannot prove a causal link between the alleged assault and the death to the criminal standard. The Court of Appeal has held that: "The threshold is a high one requiring conduct so far below acceptable standards as to amount to an abuse of the public's trust in the office holder." In addition: "It will normally be necessary to consider the likely consequences of the breach in deciding whether the conduct falls so far below the standard of conduct to be expected of the officer as to constitute the offence." The 'likely' consequences of pushing a person to the floor is that they may sustain some bruising. But, in this case, on the analysis of the medical evidence set out above, the CPS would not be able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Tomlinson's fall had caused him any injury.
As a result, we have concluded that the conduct of PC [Harwood] did not meet the high threshold required to constitute the offence of misconduct in public office.
In reaching a decision about misconduct in public office, the CPS also took into account the fact that the Court of Appeal has indicated that it would be wrong to charge misconduct in public office as an alternative to a charge of manslaughter in circumstances where the prosecution cannot prove the cause of death.
This seems problematic, and it is unconvincing.
So I will go through the material parts of the statement again.
"The offence of misconduct in public office cannot simply be used as a substitute for other offences and simply being a police officer who commits a criminal offence, even one of assault, does not, without some other aggravating factor, automatically amount to the offence of misconduct in public office,"
Note the deft use of the words "simply" and "automatically".
In fact, as we see above, the CPS's own guidance states "an assault by a police officer committed while on duty could also arguably be misconduct in public office".
In my view, this first quoted sentence gives a misleading steer.
"Mr Tomlinson's death would be an aggravating feature, but for the reasons already stated, the prosecution cannot prove a causal link between the alleged assault and the death to the criminal standard."
This again appears a red herring. As its own guidance states, an assault can be Misconduct in Public Office by itself.
"The Court of Appeal has held that: "The threshold is a high one requiring conduct so far below acceptable standards as to amount to an abuse of the public's trust in the office holder."
Watch the video.
"In addition: "It will normally be necessary to consider the likely consequences of the breach in deciding whether the conduct falls so far below the standard of conduct to be expected of the officer as to constitute the offence." The 'likely' consequences of pushing a person to the floor is that they may sustain some bruising."
That would be hitting a man with a baton, and then forcefully pushing him unexpectedly and from behind onto the concrete pavement whilst his hands were not able to break his fall.
However, the relevant leading authority states:
58. It will normally be necessary to consider the likely consequences of the breach in deciding whether the conduct falls so far below the standard of conduct to be expected of the officer as to constitute the offence. The conduct cannot be considered in a vacuum: the consequences likely to follow from it, viewed subjectively as in G, will often influence the decision as to whether the conduct amounted to an abuse of the public's trust in the officer. A default where the consequences are likely to be trivial may not possess the criminal quality required; a similar default where the damage to the public or members of the public is likely to be great may do so. In a case like the present, for example, was the death or serious injury of the man arrested the likely consequence, viewed subjectively, of inaction, or was it merely an uncomfortable night? There will be some conduct which possesses the criminal quality even if serious consequences are unlikely but it is always necessary to assess the conduct in the circumstances in which it occurs.
59. The consequences of some conduct, such as corrupt conduct, may be obvious; the likely consequences of other conduct of public officers will be less clear but it is impossible to gauge the seriousness of defaulting conduct without considering the circumstances in which the conduct occurs and its likely consequences. The whole should be considered in the context of the nature of the office and, as Sir Anthony Mason stated in Shum Kwok Sher, the responsibilities of the office and office holder.
Accordingly, the one has to consider the circumstances in which the conduct occurs and its likely consequences.
Forcefully pushing a defenceless man down from behind without warning is likely to cause serious injuries, especially when the man has had his leg smashed with a baton and his hands are in his pockets.
In my view, the CPS has misdirected itself on this point.
Furthermore, the requirement of "consequences" is not expressly part of the elements of the offence; it instead goes to what "wilful" means.
"In reaching a decision about misconduct in public office, the CPS also took into account the fact that the Court of Appeal has indicated that it would be wrong to charge misconduct in public office as an alternative to a charge of manslaughter in circumstances where the prosecution cannot prove the cause of death."
This is also misleading.
What the Court of Appeal actually said was:
"...we do not consider that, in future, in circumstances such as the present, a charge of misconduct in public office should routinely be added, as an alternative, to a charge of manslaughter by gross negligence on the basis that it may be difficult to establish causation."
That is, that the charge should not be routinely added to a charge as an alternative. There is no reason not to charge it by itself.
(I am assuming that this is the Court of Appeal decision to which the CPS are referring.)
Of course, Mr Harwood should face a charge of Manslaughter or GBH. The conflicting evidence of the post mortems is a matter for a jury to determine.
On the case more generally, I agree with outstanding article by George Monbiot.
But on the narrow point of the CPS's reasoning for there being no charge for Misconduct in Public Office, I am afraid that it is in my view misleading and unconvincing.
For it seems clear to me that on that day Simon Harwood wilfully misconducted himself to such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public's trust in him as as a police officer without reasonable excuse or justification.
And that's criminal.
COMMENTS MODERATION
No purely anonymous comments will be published; always use a name for ease of reference by other commenters.
Sunday, 25 July 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
45 comments:
The failure to issue a criminal charge by the CPS or to issue one where one is not indicated can constitute Misconduct in Public Office. Both scenarios are capable of being far below the standards expected of the DPP. But who will charge the DPP?
I fail to see how this is not, in some way, misconduct. The footage shows not only the incident but the run-up as well, and the force used by Mr Harwood is seemingly completely unnecessary.
I was saddened to hear that the CPS were not going to press charges, but perhaps more saddened by the fact that I was not surprised.
I agree with Chris' sentiments above.
Tomlinson had his hands in his pocket, and was pushed unprovoked. In spite of what the post mortem has come back with is, manslaughter should be dealt to Mr Harwood.
But I wanted to know what the author's opinion is on why the proceedings have ended with Mr Harwood being allowed off with no charge?
Perhaps there is good reason to have reservations on effects of Mr Harwood's causes (i.e. did he cause the death of Tomlinson), but is there anything to substantiate the claim by some that there has been a miscarriage of justice on the Tomlinson case?
I keep asking myself, "What if Ian Tomlinson had not died, but merely sustained minor bruising?"
Surely even then, given such clear video evidence, there would have been grounds for a criminal charge, or at least disciplinary action, against PC Harwood, for assaulting someone, from behind, with no immediately-preceding provocation and certainly no need for self-defence?
I have read that the pathologist who gave the 'heart attack' cause of death the CPS is relying on in not charging manslaughter has since been struck off the list of home office pathologists. If that is so, then the CPS' refusal to charge manslaughter is really inexplicable.
I wonder why I'm not seeing anything about this case in the various British police blogs I occasionally read. Actually, I don't wonder.
CPS themselves now themselves seem to be guilty of Misconduct in Public Office.
All police, and all those in authority have to be held to a higher standard because they should know better.
You know, for a minute there it looked like the CPS were saying that the very minimum he would have needed to do to have abused the public's trust in the police was killed someone.
If I read Monbiot's op-ed piece correctly, he is calling for a private prosecution.
If the money can be scraped together, and some fearless soul begins the process, would anyone take a bet that the Director of Public Prosecutions will 'Bowbelle' it?
The DPP has the power to take over any private prosecution if the case is such that prosecution serves the public as well as private interest... And the power to immediately halt the case if it is politically expedient to do so.
People should be more careful about the medical evidence regarding manslaughter. Even if Dr. Patel was unable to tell his ascites from his elbow, the subsequent examinations by the pathologists would not provide sufficient evidence to substantiate a manslaughter charge.
As George Monbiot points out: imagine the roles were reversed. We would be outraged that someone was convicted on the evidence of an allegedly incompetent doctor who subsequently recanted/amended his original finding.
Niles question is one I have been asking myself too, seeing as the CPS has gone so far out on a limb to not bring any charges, If a private prosecution is brought, why won't it be taken over, and dropped once again for lack of evidence, or not being in the public interest?
Monsieur Herve (how does get his accent with an English keyboard) has the rights of it when he suggests that the DPP is, in itself, guilty of this offence. Who can make such a charge, and how?
Ian Tomlinson was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Under normal circumstances walking along slowly in front of the police with his hands in his pockets apparently ignoring imprecations to move along and apparently being obstructive would not have motivated a police officer to push him along.
But these were not normal circumstances. Don't forget that there was a riot in progress and the police were facing large numbers bent on anarchy and destruction. Not everybody in the G20 was a well-meaning back bench MP or journalist there to observe.
To intemperately slander the policeman as a "thug" is a lapse of judgement on Jack of Kent's part which I am sure that in time he will himself regret. This is not his finest hour. Monbiot has at least got the excuse of no legal training.
If Keir Starmer and the CPS do not see this as a clear abuse of the public trust (indeed the public trust has been well and truly demolished) then they are blind.
Dear WoollyMindedLiberal,
I appreciate your sentiment and you're right that it was a time of fraught wits and tempers but none of that obviates or excuses an unprovoked attack (as indicated in the video) by a person in authority on a member of the public whom they have sworn to serve and protect.
As to "intemperately slander the policeman as a "thug"" being a lapse in judgement, I suggest this, along with the complete blog post, falls into the category of fair comment. JoK has gone to pains to make it clear that he has written his view on the circumstances while quoting the law that (in his opinion) applies.
And I agree with every word.
There is nothing intemperate about the description of the police officer seen in the video as a thug. He demonstrates the kind of behaviour to which the word "thug" is applied in contemporary English. Why should we decline to apply it?
We can see the circumstances in which the incident takes place; we can see what immediately precedes it; we can see that no officer is in any immediate physical danger.
We see half a dozen officers paying no attention to Mr Tomlinson at all, and certainly not reacting to him as if he was posing any kind of threat.
Then we see one officer leap forward, strike Mr Tomlinson on the legs with his baton, and with both hands firmly push Mr Tomlinson to the ground.
This may not be enough evidence to convict the officer of a crime. But it is more than enough to justify describing him as a thug and a disgrace to the police force.
What is also a disgrace is that his colleagues casually watch Mr Tomlinson pick himself up, visibly (and inevitably) dazed and in pain, without any attempt to assist him.
This is not because they are engaged in a rapidly developing riot situation. They are standing around aimlessly. It would cost them nothing to help the man up who their colleage has just knocked down.
But they don't.
Nor do they show the slightest bit of shock or surprise that their colleague has just launched an unprovoked physical attack on a passer-by.
If Mr Tomlinson had drawn a weapon and launched a similar attack on an officer, his colleagues would surely have rushed to his aid, pulling the assailant away and pinning him to the ground.
But when the assailant is one of their own, and the victim a member of the public they are sworn to protect, their response is silence. And the same goes for their superiors.
The only conclusion to be drawn from the decision of the DPP and the silence of the police is that officers are permitted to attack any member of the public, without specific justification and without regard to the consequences, for the duration of any kind of public disorder, including a predominantly lawful protest.
This is a dangerous state of affairs. But it would still not result in deaths such as Mr Tomlinson's if thugs were not employed as police officers.
This isn't a case of an obscure argument about the nature of the scientific method, or the problems of libel law. An innocent man was violently assaulted and then died minutes later. The criminal is not being prosecuted because he is a policeman. The evidence thank god is there for the world to see. Very many ordinary people throughout the country are outraged by what has happened. Does anyone have the contact details for the campaign which surely must have started to achieve some sort of justice here?
WML
I quite deliberately called Simon Harwood a thug.
Watch the video. Read what the CPS say about his conduct.
And what you will see, and you will read is one thing: thuggery.
And if Simon Harwood wishes to sue me for that libel (not slander, by the way - do try and get the terms right when you troll), he is welcome to do so.
Indeed, should he chose to sue me, I will publish further libels so that the entirety of the allegations against him are finally put before a (libel) jury.
not that wooly minded are you WML;
there are only a few in this world that could justify violence onto someone looking as harmless as possible in the middle of, as you rightly point out, a riot including people hell bent on anarchy and destruction. But you've managed it, criticising the legal knowledge of both JoK and Monbiot, without actually engaging with the law in your comment at all. I find this bizarre.
I would like to simply thank JoK for his well motivated helpful initial post.
In answer to a question above, Ian Tomlinson's family have started a campaign to raise the funds needed to try and contest this outrageous decision to leave the police above the law: http://www.iantomlinsonfamilycampaign.org.uk/#
"Was I wrong to call PC Simon Harwood a 'thug'?"
PC Simon Harwood did not give Ian Tomlison a "move along then"-push. He took a run from behind and, with his full bodyweight, shoved his unsuspecting victim violently to the ground.
If that wasn't the action of a thug, I would hate to ask what constitutes thuggery.
For those who wish to refresh their memories of the events that led to Ian Tomlinson's death I recommend the Guardian timeline:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/interactive/2009/apr/08/g20-police-assault-ian-tomlinson
I do think we need to see and understand the 'rules of engagement' under which police officers were operating at that time; particularly, as it applied to those police offiers operating away from the area where the main body of demonstrators was confined.
Have these been published?
George Monbiot made the point that had Tomlinson assaulted a police officer we could easily appreciate what would have happened.
To those with a genuine interest in the problem of 'Assaults on Police Officers', I recommend:
http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/prgpdfs/fprs10.pdf
I have searched but have been unable to find a similar study on assaults by the police on the general public.
Has the principle of 'policing by consent' gone so far out of the window that police officers are now to be considered immune from prosecution where they engage in unprovoked assaults on members of the general public?
@WoollyMindedLiberal
But these were not normal circumstances. Don't forget that there was a riot in progress and the police were facing large numbers bent on anarchy and destruction.
This is simply not true. There was no riot in progress, there were no bricks or petrol bombs, there were simply large numbers of people being held in a police 'kettle' outside the Bank of England.
Ian Tomlinson was assaulted well outside that area, where police were clearing the streets, completely, the gap between the inner and outer police cordons was over 150m.
The people who witnessed the attacks on Ian Tomlinson were chased away, first by police dogs, then by baton wielding thugs from the British Transport, City and Metropolitan Police Forces. They were charged at repeatedly, until they had run 1 kilometre, to Tooley Street.
The police were so determined to remove everybody from the Square Mile that they even held up the ambulance rushing to where Ian Tomlinson had collapsed, and had to be directly told to move aside by the commander on the ground - Chief Superintendent Robertson.
See more details here:
G20: Another version of the truth
To be honest, from the footage it certainly looks like he was making a nuisance of himself, not exactly as the media have painted. Of course that doesn't necessarily excuse the officers behaviour... but I'd like to see more of the preceding footage.
Certainly strange to see WML denounced as a 'troll' for offering a dissenting voice...
@Baena
Ha, WML is a well-known troll. My comment was not just re this comment.
I wouldn't say that he was making a nuisance of himself but I'm not so certain that Tomlinson was struck with the baton before being pushed. Firstly if he'd been hit with any force he would react (he just seems to take another step) and secondly the sort of bruise left by a baton strike should be pretty clear in a post mortem.
The CPS should charge on this, Tomlinson was clearly assaulted with out provocation but I'm not sure we should claim that he was hit with the baton when it's pretty unclear and such an action should be pretty obvious.
@LR
The CPS state he was first hit by a baton without any qualification. See link above.
Dr Brian Blood is right: it would be useful indeed to see the rules of engagement.
Causation is IMHO a red herring - the test for finding legal and factual causation is quite low.
@JoK ah I see it, thank you.
It would appear that the work of the retired Justice The Honourable Thomas R. Braidwood, Q.C. is essentially complete. Perhaps you could "borrow" him.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braidwood_Inquiry
The former judge had some pretty harsh things to say about the behaviour of police in this case -- He viewed the matter as a failure to act in accordance with training. He said the “senior officer acted inappropriately and aggressively” when dealing with Mr. Dziekanski. He held the victim “did not brandish the stapler by either placing it above his head or motioning with it in an aggressive manner toward any of the officers”. Further, Dziekanski “did not step towards to the officers”. The use of the conducted energy weapon “was not justified”. The actions of the constable and the corporal were inappropriate and unjustified. Braidwood did “not believe that either of these officers honestly perceived that Mr. Dziekanski was intending to attack them or the other officers”. The two other officers offered “patently unbelievable” explanations of their actions. All four made “deliberate misrepresentations”.
Perhaps equally important is the province's Attorney General's take -- B.C.’s attorney-general Michael de Jong... named lawyer Richard Peck as special prosecutor to take a second look at criminal charges against four RCMP officers.
If the police officer committed an assault, he really ought to be charged with assault. Using a general charge like Misconduct in Public Office if in fact what we are saying is that the guy committed a basic criminal offence seems to me to be a misuse of the offence. MiPO really ought to be used for acts which fall short of criminal offences but are antisocial when committed by those in public office, or where there is an antisocial effect in addition to the direct effect of the criminal offence, because of the public office aspect.
I seem to recall there was the twitter bomb hoax case, where we criticised the CPS for not preferring a charge of bomb hoax, but using some very general charge instead, when what they were really criticising him for was bomb hoax aspect. Charge people with what we are really criticising them for.
As far as I understand, the reason that the police officer is not being charged with assault is that there is a time limit on bringing an assault charge, which has now expired, because they spent so long deciding whether to bring manslaughter charges. Was it so difficult to bring this charge in time while they considered whether the greater charge was also justified? And what about charges such as GBH, ABH, etc? Aren't they appropriate? Can't they still be brought?
There are special issues applying to police officers, because they are kitted out with weapons that it is anticipated will be used, and not just for self-protection but protection of the wider public. So, there ought to be some specific regulation of the misuse of force by police officers. But MiPO, which we really think of as misbehaving administrators, really doesn't seem right for this.
Good analysis of this aspect of the case which was in some danger of being neglected.
If an assault of this nature does not amount to misconduct in public office, then what does? That is the simple question being asked by right-thinking members of the public.
One question is troubling me. Is there any resistance from the constable's colleagues to any form of action against him as in the earlier case of the police gunning down an innocent scotsman carrying a chairleg when the police 'gunmen' banded together to threaten withdrawal from the service and the Met caved in? Being of cynical mind, I suspect that there has been no cooperation with the enquiry from those present and this is unvoiced leitmotif of the CPS' position.
I would have said that for an on duty police officer to assault an innocent member of the public was clearly an abuse of power, regardless of the results of the assault. I do not see wht a change of assault or misconduct would require any definate link to the subsequent death. As far as Manslaughter goes, I cannot help feeling that if it a demonstrator pushed a police officer to the ground, resulting in the officers death, a jury would be given the oportunity to consider the evidence and rule on a manslaughter charge. The same should have been done in this case
I'm disinclined to make any judgement about the case based on the evidence of a single video, and I think it's disappointing that you do. It's even more disappointing that you take any notice of George Monbiot, who makes a habit of writing extraordinarily ignorant and badly informed articles attacking the police.
Personally, I think it is a shame the officer was not prosecuted for assault (or even manslaughter) as to me his actions appear hard to justify and I would be interested to know what defence he would put up.
Misconduct in Public Office, however, seems wrong to me. As another poster mentions, the offence ought really to be used when no other offence is appropriate. This would usually be because the actions would not, in most other contexts, be illegal, but are damaging to the public because of the nature of the office. In this case, we have a simple case of someone acting in the heat of the moment and, allegedly, going beyond what is reasonable and justifiable and therefore comitting assault. Wilful misconduct? I don't see it.
It would appear that the threshold CPS are required to cross when considering prosecution "public interest" has been ignored in most discussion here and elsewhere. This matter should be prosecuted on that limb even if prevarication has prevented accepting that the post mortem and all that surrounds it should have been placed before a jury.
Tried to send the following to the CPS feedback site but it isn't working at present.
The decision not to prosecute PC Harwood for Misconduct in Public office is, in my opinion, a mistake. It will lend credence to the feeling that the police are above the law. The removal of his badge number and masking of his face shows pre-metitation on his part. You have reduced the respect I hold for the police by this decision.
The CPS decision seems to be saying that the police officer should have been charged with common assault, but that is not possible now outside the strict 6 month time limit. Would an early assault charge - i.e. within the time limit - have prevented a charge for manslaughter, ABH or GBH, or misconduct, being brought later?
Monbiot's strongest point, I think, is to imagine a situation in which a policeman died shortly after being pushed over by a member of the public. How likely is it that no charges would be brought in that situation, even if there was equivalently contradictory autopsy evidence? It is a crying shame that there are significant doubts about the results of the first autopsy, but the jury is the tool used by our criminal justice system to weigh the relevant merits of contradictory evidence.
So, thee police in London are going to literally get away with murder yet again.
This is a disgraceful cover-up. Hardwood should be tried before a jury.
Are Londoners really so sanguine that they tolerate policing that results in the deaths of innocent civilians?
"That is, that the charge should not be routinely added to a charge as an alternative. There is no reason not to charge it by itself. "
You're presuming that the Court of Appeal was making a procedural point, which seems a pretty weak reading (i.e. they'd forbid charging the policeman with both manslaughter and misconduct, but either would be fine).
They strike me as making a substantive point. Indeed, your quotation is followed by an observation that Misconduct and manslaughter are "quite different". The difference seems -to me- to be in the source of the duty. At 55 the CA says that misconduct must be a 'breach of duty by the officer'. Does a policeman have a duty -as a policeman- not to assault members of the public? I don't think so. Duties follow rights, and there is a general right to be free from assault that is no weaker against a man in the street than against a copper. The CA then cites Lord Mansfield in Bembridge, where misconduct is constructed as a breach of duties carried out for the benefit of the public. The copper in question wasn't carrying out a particular public function: he was walking down a street (as he could anyway) and shoved Mr Tomlinson (as he could anyway).
"In a case like the present, for example, was the death or serious injury of the man arrested the likely consequence, viewed subjectively, of inaction, or was it merely an uncomfortable night?"
I struggle to see that anything near death was -subjectively- predictable from a shove in the back.
The man should be tried for assualt, possibly manslaughter, but I remain unconvinced on the misconduct charge.
The "Statutes of Limitations" need to be revised now that we now rely on more temporally durable evidence than pure human memories.
JoK - this was a particularly interesting post, even by your own high standards.
There seems, however, to be one small factual error contained within: Ian Tomlinsosn was able to break his fall with his hands.
I watched the video you linked to and, even though his hands are in his pockets the moment he is shoved from behind by Simon Harwood (in a cowardly and thuggish manner), he clearly gets his hands out in front of him to break his fall before landing.
therefore the last line of your paragraph
That would be hitting a man with a baton, and then forcefully pushing him unexpectedly and from behind onto the concrete pavement whilst his hands were not able to break his fall.
is incorrect.
Firstly it was very telling when a policeman reported that a "protester" was hurt, showing a good example of the acceptibility of a type of presumption of guilt or prejudice by the police, in other words a them against us mentality. This points towards bad management in the polce.
Secondly, of course it is misconduct in publice office, because the policeman obviously had no concept that he was meant to be protecting Mr Tomlinson, not assaulting him. Who wants a police force that tolerates and indeed perpetuates such low standards, and doesn't this throw the whole system into disrepute?
It is now quite some time later.
Harwood has been charged and pled not-guilty, trial is set for mid 2012.
What surprises me is that no disciplinary action has been taken against the police officers around Harwood who witnessed and ignored his action. At the very least they were nonfeasant in public office and should be treated accordingly (ie: fired for wilfully failing to perform their duty).
The CPS has caved into public pressure about Harwood, but they're "paying no attention to the man behind the curtain". Even if Harwood is found guilty there is cause for lack of confidence in the police until all the officers involved are brought to account.
Post a Comment