At Tomlinson’s inquest the jury were unanimous in their findings that he was killed unlawfully at the hands of Harwood who was caught on camera striking Tomlinson with his baton before charging into him, sending him crashing to the ground. Tomlinson later died from his injuries received from the fall. The jury went on to conclude that the force used by Harwood was ‘unreasonable’ and therefore not justified.

The family responded to the news by saying “We welcome today’s decision to bring a charge of manslaugher against the officer. We believe this is the right decision. What we have always wanted is to achieve justice for Ian and to show that police officers are not above the law”

Related articles:

• Ian Tomlinson killed by police – official
• Tomlinson’s killer?
• G20 policing in the dock

They took just three hours and fifteen minutes to reach their verdict and the court was caught unawares by the jury’s quick decision. They returned to the room and answered four short questions, known as the inquisition.

What was the name of the deceased?
Ian Tomlinson.

What was the cause of his death? Injury or disease?
Abdominal haemorrhage due to blunt force trauma to the abdomen in association with cirrhosis of the liver.

If the person died of injury, what were the circumstances?
Mr Tomlinson was on his way home from work on the 1st of April 2009 during the G20 demonstration. He was fatally injured at around 19.20pm on Royal Exchange Buildings … This was the result of a baton strike from behind and a push by the officer which caused Ian Tomlinson to fall heavily.

The jury said both the baton strike and the push were “unreasonable”.

“As a result, Mr Tomlinson suffered internal bleeding which led to his collapse within a few minutes and his subsequent death.” The jury decided that at the time of the strike and push Tomlinson was was walking away from the officer and “posed no threat”.

What is the jury’s conclusion as to the death?
Unlawful killing.

According to the Guardian reporter the verdict of unlawful killing is an important one: “To reach an unlawful killing conclusion, the jury were required to have been satisfied to a higher burden of proof than the other possible verdicts, which could have been reached “on the balance of probabilities”. But to reach the unlawful killing verdict, the jury had to be convinced “beyond reasonable doubt”, the same threshold used in criminal trials”.

This now puts pressure on The Director of Public Prosecutions Keir Starmer to reassess his decision not to originally charge Harword will a criminal offence.

A statement from Jules Carey, of Tuckers solicitors, representing the Tomlinson family,  says: “Today’s decision is a huge relief to Mr Tomlinson’s family. To many, today’s verdict will seem like a statement of the blindingly obvious, however this fails to take account of the significant and many obstacles faced by the family over the last two years to get to this decision. The CPS will now review whether a prosecution will be brought following today’s verdict and the way in which the evidence has been clarified during the inquest process”.

Related articles:

• Tomlinson’s Killer?
• PC Steve Discombe: Scum Cop
  

The anti-G20 protests in the heart of London’s financial district on 1st April 2009 still resonant with interesting if uncertain implications for anarchists and radicals two years on. What was an expansive, intense and violent policing operation, thousands of protesters were kettled and beaten with impunity as they converged on the Bank of England in the heart of the City, and later at the ‘climate camp’ protest situated some distance away where police savaged peaceful protesters who they had trapped at Bishopsgate, mainly young activists in a makeshift camp outside the European Climate Exchange. Both of these incidents have come under public and legal scrutiny, in the way the police handled the protest and the manner in which they enforced the law.

The G20 policing operation marks an ugly low in recent public order policing, where one person was killed by the actions of the riot squad and many others sustained severe injuries. The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), the private company which is tasked with devising operational procedures on behalf of police, have developed a secretive public order policy that involves ensuring political demonstrations become off-putting through a brutal and unpalatable course of action to ‘encourage’ people not to return to or attend future protests.

It is within this parameter that two cases have come before the legal authorities concerning the policing of the G20 protests. The inquest into the death of Ian Tomlinson, as reported previously by Freedom, and a judicial review brought before the High Court recently by three climate camp activists who were amongst the 5000 strong crowd contained and beaten by police at Bishopsgate – both offer us useful perspectives on the strategy of political policing.

In an extraordinary, yet indecisive, judgement the High Court ruled the police did act unlawfully against the climate camp activists in the disproportionate use of force and containing them in the manner in which they did.  On the surface what looks like an impressive victory for the protesters is in reality couched in terms that actually reinforce police powers and, crucially, their actions. The kettling tactic, which is at present being challenged in the European courts, was declared unlawful in this circumstance only because there was no imminent threat of breach of the peace to justify containment. That is, if the threat of violence is great enough kettling is still a lawful and justified police tactic in the eyes of the law. It is worth pointing out a comment made by the judges that the kettle at the Bank of England “is not criticised in these proceedings as unlawful”.

What the judges did criticise were the actions of individual officers. In a telling remark they stated “The Climate Camp was not a violent crowd, although some individual police officers appear from their notebooks to have thought wrongly that they were”. The shield strikes – thrusting the sides of the riot shield into the faces of trapped protesters – came under particular criticism as not being recognised as a lawful use of force by the court stating the instructions by senior officers were “very general and imprecise and may not have been fully conveyed to individual officers, some of whom appear not to have been trained for crowd control operations of this kind”. What was not challenged, or even explored, was that this kind of violence was sanctioned, expected and ordered by those at the highest level.

In that respect we have to look at the war of words played out between the police and the G20 Meltdown protest organiser Chris Knight. Far from being an anarchist, Knight is a privileged academic whose role at these events seems to be providing the police with the ammunition needed to execute high levels of violence against protesters. His provocative and often inappropriate media outbursts allowed the police strategists the opportunity to legally justify their ‘heavy-handed approach’. In the judge’s ruling it stated the senior officer based his decision to impose a kettle at the Bank of England in part on “intelligence about those organising the events”.

Equally at the Ian Tomlinson inquest, attended most days by Freedom’s editor, the police witness statements and testimony all point to an increased expectation of violence on the day as a direct result of media coverage and the escalating war of words. It was Knight who famously said to the press “The message to police is ‘if you press your nuclear button, I’ll press mine’. It sounds like a threat? Well, yeah – don’t do it. If you want violence, you’ll get it.” And it was, as revealed at the Tomlinson inquest, a senior officer who briefed his riot police to treat “violent activists with an iron fist”.

Anarchists have always been used as scapegoats by the state to justify their increasingly repressive measures towards political dissent. The likely outcome of the High Court climate camp ruling is that kettling will in future be determined by the amount of disorder expected and expressed, yet the ‘hardcore of troublemakers’ will continue to be targeted by police, perhaps before they arrive at the demonstration, where ‘preventative policing’ takes on a new and darker tone. It is also obvious that other elements are using anarchists for their own particular purpose, something we as a movement should be aware of.

Article originally appeared in Freedom #7208
Freedom newspaper can be purchased directly from our shop or available at any good radical bookshop/social centre.

Freedom Bookshop
Angel Alley
84b Whitechapel High Street
London E1 7QX
Alternatively take out a yearly subscription (only £20) and have the paper delivered to you.

» SUBSCRIBE HERE

PC Harwood takes the stand at inquest into G20 death

The officer who struck Ian Tomlinson took the stand on the third day of the inquest into his death just over two years ago by police, to answer questions publicly for the first time about the incident.

PC Simon Harwood, who is a member of the violent and largely unaccountable Territorial Support Group (TSG), was questioned about what he did on 1st April 2009 during the anti-G20 protests. He was also questioned extensively about his recollections and motivations for attacking people during the demonstration. Over the three days, footage was shown to the jury of Harwood dragging a protester at speed into the door of an opened riot van, pulling to the ground a BBC cameraman who was filming an arrest, and pushing a protester with both hands all minutes before coming into contact with Ian Tomlinson.

Harwood the driver of a TSG van parked just round the corner to kettled protesters at the Bank of England was supposed to remain with his carrier, instead he “engaged” with a number of protesters leading to the events in Royal Exchange passage, where Ian Tomlinson, a newspaper vendor and unconnected to the demonstration, was trying to go home.

Being led through his testimony by the coroners barrister Harwood remained adamant that his actions towards Tomlinson were “necessary, proportionate and reasonable” much to the anger and dismay of the Tomlinson family members present who were forced to watch as Harwood in full riot gear struck Mr. Tomlinson on the leg as he was walking away from police lines with his hands in his pockets, then immediately charged into him sending him violently to the ground where it is believed he sustained the injuries that led to his death some minutes later.

Paul King, Tomlinson’s elder son, walked out in disgust as Harwood took to the stand and say that “he only wanted to help the family”. Previously Harwood had made three prepared statements to the IPCC and refused to answer their questions during interview. Eventually he admitted on the stand that Mr Tomlinson posed no threat to himself or any other officer, that he was walking away from police lines.

The atmosphere in the inquest was tense and emotional, and several times family members had to leave looking distressed. Harwood spoke in a slow quiet tone throughout and often refused to answer question exclaiming he didn’t understand what the barrister was trying to say.

The inquest is expected to go on for another five weeks and will include medical testimony from the discredited Dr Freddy Patel who did the first post mortem on Mr Tomlinson declaring he died of natural causes, which lead to the decision by the Director of Public Prosecutions not to prosecute PC Harwood for criminal liability, even though two subsequent independent post mortems say Mr Tomlinson died from internal bleeding, consistent with receiving a heavy blow.

Freedom has been present at the inquest on a daily basis and will continue to report about the day’s proceedings on via the website.

Article originally appeared in Freedom #7207
Freedom newspaper can be purchased directly from our shop or available at any good radical bookshop/social centre.

Freedom Bookshop
Angel Alley
84b Whitechapel High Street
London E1 7QX
Alternatively take out a yearly subscription (only £20) and have the paper delivered to you.

» SUBSCRIBE HERE

PC Harwood takes the stand at inquest into G20 death

The officer who struck Ian Tomlinson took the stand on the third day of the inquest into his death just over two years ago by police, to answer questions publicly for the first time about the incident.

PC Simon Harwood, who is a member of the violent and largely unaccountable Territorial Support Group (TSG), was questioned about what he did on 1st April 2009 during the anti-G20 protests. He was also questioned extensively about his recollections and motivations for attacking people during the demonstration. Over the three days, footage was shown to the jury of Harwood dragging a protester at speed into the door of an opened riot van, pulling to the ground a BBC cameraman who was filming an arrest, and pushing a protester with both hands all minutes before coming into contact with Ian Tomlinson.

Harwood the driver of a TSG van parked just round the corner to kettled protesters at the Bank of England was supposed to remain with his carrier, instead he “engaged” with a number of protesters leading to the events in Royal Exchange passage, where Ian Tomlinson, a newspaper vendor and unconnected to the demonstration, was trying to go home.

Being led through his testimony by the coroners barrister Harwood remained adamant that his actions towards Tomlinson were “necessary, proportionate and reasonable” much to the anger and dismay of the Tomlinson family members present who were forced to watch as Harwood in full riot gear struck Mr. Tomlinson on the leg as he was walking away from police lines with his hands in his pockets,  then immediately charged into him sending him violently to the ground where it is believed he sustained the injuries that led to his death some minutes later.

Paul King, Tomlinson’s elder son, walked out in disgust as Harwood took to the stand and say that “he only wanted to help the family”. Previously Harwood had made three prepared statements to the IPCC and refused to answer their questions during interview. Eventually he admitted on the stand that Mr Tomlinson posed no threat to himself or any other officer, that he was walking away from police lines.

The atmosphere in the inquest was tense and emotional, and several times family members had to leave looking distressed. Harwood spoke in a slow quiet tone throughout and often refused to answer question exclaiming he didn’t understand what the barrister was trying to say.

The inquest is expected to go on for another five weeks and will include medical testimony from the discredited Dr Freddy Patel who did the first post mortem on Mr Tomlinson declaring he died of natural causes, which lead to the decision by the Director of Public Prosecutions not to prosecute PC Harwood for criminal liability, even though two subsequent independent post mortems say Mr Tomlinson died from internal bleeding, consistent with receiving a heavy blow.

Freedom has been present at the inquest on a daily basis and will continue to report about the day’s proceedings on via the website.

And so they should. The obvious photo-call for libertarian socialism that these demonstrations present should be taken. In a straightforward way, it was Denmark’s own Libertaere Socialister (no marks for originality) who called a block on the main protest and were joined by Norway’s Counterpower and Sweden’s Syndicalist Youth Federation (the youth wing of the SAC union), and after our entire block was pre-emptively arrested, good media work was done. With radio, television and newspaper interviews about the illegitimate power of the police, LS seem to be off to a flying start. In a vaguer, slightly whimsical way, it was good that militant dissent did take place. Anyone looking hard enough will know that it was there and that it exists. They won’t know its programme or get its message (because collectively, there isn’t one) but physical opposition partly legitimises itself just by existing. Put it this way: you don’t ask yourself if it’s okay to save the planet by torching cop cars if no one is torching cop cars.

In the event, militancy plucked a particularly bitter fruit. What might have been ‘Seattle’s 10th Birthday’ was more like ‘G20 Meltdown – The Sequel’ as disruption that had-not-even-happened-yet inspired a truly phenomenal police crackdown for a modern European softie state like Denmark.

Cops took great delight in their tourist-guide-meets-nazi routine – one minute they were wishing you a pleasant protest (without a hint of the sarcasm that a British bobby couldn’t resist) and the next they were indiscriminately CS-spraying trapped crowds. In a beautiful scene, the whole world witnessed them beating actual delegates in suits as they tried to leave the conference centre.

However the defining image of the summit will be the mass arrest of 900 people on the peaceful demonstration on 12th December. A section of the march was blocked both in front and behind by a sudden police charge. Everyone sat on the floor with their hands cable-tied and denied toilet access. They were then taken to specially built cages and held for 12 hours before being released without charge.

On the television news reports the head of the operation said they were not detaining the 900 for any actual crimes, but to prevent crimes they might later commit – and to put off other people who were thinking about committing crimes!

Although my Danish friends initially said this would not turn into a scandal as most of the country supported the police action, it cannot become anything but a scandal and a reference point for Danish politics. If there is any debate on the legitimacy of the police and what their role is, then this is perfect ammunition.

It is odd to admit, but on top of a decent enough crack at the whole counter-summit thing, the police action is the biggest and most valuable event of the week. It was just so unhinged.

The trick to having a good experience – even if you were held without charge or savaged by dogs – was to go with honest expectations. Being an outspoken negatron is not needed and will win you few friends: the way to talk about setting up a long-term movement with people in short-term affinity groups is to do it from inside their affinity groups. A good way to explain how voting is a lot easier than ‘consensus’ is to participate in consensus, then evaluate how it went with others. If you come with the open intention to have a good time but still get involved with the slightly silly activities, you have the chance to meet people who are willing to take action – an extremely valuable resource as people willing to sleep in a school hall and fight police in Copenhagen are likely to also be willing to stay up all night to fend off bailiffs in the UK. The one sure way to avoid disappointment is to take a walk straight through the reams of material on the Zen of Teargas and the Art of Lock-Ons and accept that thousands of people trying to disrupt capitalism’s zenith is a nice enough message on its own.

People on the left with a longer gameplan than a year spent organising One Big Riot, class struggle anarchists particularly, need to accept that actions are clearly still a big draw, and even those that really should know better will turn up. Rather than telling every­one, again, what a waste of time it is, we need to absorb the elements that make the big days out fun into our own projects. There is always a place for disobedient and boisterous demos, for occupations and street theatre (the proper rabble-rousing kind, not the ‘dyed my dreads pink and have a drum’ kind).

In December 2008, thirty angry Santas from the London Coalition Against Poverty stormed the Royal Back of Scotland, even getting into one trading floor – exactly the way to move on to the ‘old’ class struggle whilst keeping the best parts of the ‘new’.

Keith Hallack

The Climate Justice Action group has issued a condemnation of the unprovoked police actions while other groups are planning on launching an official complaint regarding the inhuman treatment of prisoners.
Nearly a thousand people were arrested on one day alone at a giant march in Copenhagen, with protesters being picked off by police, corralled and then held without access to toilet facilities or clean water.
Around 100,000 people marched in Copenhagen, while 90,000 turned out for a walk against warming in Australia.

Of those arrested, all but 13 were released, however on the following day, another 200 were arrested, with police using the ‘illegal’ nature of the march as an excuse to round up anyone they felt might be a troublemaker.

Police have wide powers to declare large gatherings of people illegal, which in turn gives them the ability to arrest people who try to exercise their right to protest.

Protesters at the event are attempting to pressure national leaders to make commit­ments to keep CO2 emissions to below 350 parts per million – the maximum level which climate change scientists say the planet can get away with.

However there are major differences between what rich and poor nations are asking for.

A total of 37 people have now been charged with crimes relating to the G20 protests, the City of London Police announced on Friday 7th August.

Charges include arson, violent disorder and impersonating a police officer.

• Eleven people are charged with impersonating a police officer;
• Nine charged with violent disorder;
• One charged with violent disorder, theft and possession of an offensive weapon;
• One charged with assaulting a police office;.
• One charged with burglary;
• One charged with causing fear/provocation of violence;
• One charged with criminal damage;
• One charged with possession of articles for use in criminal damage.

All 26 people, charged as above, are on police bail to appear at City of London Magistrates Court on 3rd and 4th September.
Three people are currently on court bail, charged with:

• Arson and recklessly endangering life;
• Criminal damage and burglary;
• Possession of articles for use in criminal damage.

Eight further people have been dealt with, for a variety of offences including criminal damage and burglary:

• One community order;
• One referral order;
• Four conditional discharges;
• One charge dropped by CPS;
• One charged, later replaced with a caution.

Six people remain on police bail, and three have failed to answer bail.
But what of the naughty coppers who killed Ian Tomlinson and are now revealed to have refused to allow a women with heavy vaginal bleeding leading to a possible miscarriage to leave the cordon on 1st April? A big fat zero.

The investigation into the G20 have at last resulted in charges. Not of any of the cops involved in Ian Tomlinson’s death of course, that would be ridiculous. Instead eleven people from the Space Hijackers group have been charged with ‘impersonating police officers’ and ‘wearing items of police uniform’.

The Space Hijackers are a group of “Anarchitects, we oppose the hierarchy that is put upon us by architects, planners and owners of space. Through the events that we hold and the objects that we produce we are attempting to corrupt the culture of architecture, and destroy the hierarchies that exist.” Among other things they are famous for bringing a tank to be auctioned at the DSEI arms fair in 2007.

The crime they are charged with under s90 of the Police Act 1996 carries a six month maximum sentence and involved them driving around London in said tank with the word ‘riot’ written on it while dressed in comedy police outfits.

The Space Hijackers are of course are not real hijackers, the name is as a Special Branch copper told a Judge about the Wombles: “An attempt at anarchist wit M’Lud”. Hijacking is serious crime carrying a maximum of life imprisonment. What’s more, hijacking involves something that moves such as a plane or car, static objects cannot be hijacked. Here is clear evidence against the Space Hijackers of their deceitful nature, pretending to be what they are not. Anyone needing further proof of their guilt has only to check out their so called ‘tank’, which was in fact only a Saracen Armoured Personnel carrier. What’s more the Saracen name is also a complete lie having no connection to the Middle East but instead being manufactured by Alvis in Coventry.

The decision to prosecute is, of course, not made by the police but by the Crown Prosecution Service, headed by Director of Public Prosecutions Keir Starmer. Older readers may remember him as a crusading civil liberties lawyer and he was a barrister on good (but losing) side at the first hearing of the Austin v Met Police case concerning kettling at Oxford Circus during Mayday 2001. It’s always nice to be proved right that the problem is with the system not the odd bad apple. With his radicalism Keir also seams to have lost his grip on the law. In particular that prosecutions need to be not only for actual offences but in the public interest. If there was ever a case…

The next stage in the farce will be their appearance at 10am on the 3rd September at City of London Magistrates Court, right next to the Bank of England where thousands of people were detained for over six hours on 1st April and just a few hundred yards from where Ian Tomlinson died. Come along and show your support from the harmless hijackers and contempt for the ‘real’ constabulary and the system that supports its crimes.