Was there not some suggestion that the victim had some pre-existing condition, and that the actions of Tomlinson were nothing to do with his collapse?

There was, from a subsequently discredited pathologist.

Oh and Tomlinson was the victim BTW

Because the jury is meant to make a decision on the facts of the case before them, not on the reputation (deserved or otherwise) of the defendant and victim. The same reason that previous convictions are not (generally) disclosed to juries for anyone being tried in the courts.

Yep, and despite my annoyance at the outcome I still don't think defendants records should be known by the jury in most cases.

Plus I doubt his record would have made any difference in this case, if the video of him attacking Ian Tomlinson isn't enough then I doubt his previous record would have made the difference.

On a slightly separate point, his record shows how the cover up/protect each other at all costs mentality is still alive and well in our wonderful police force.

It might very well have made a difference, that's why it wasnt allowed as evidence. There was no real dispute over what Harwood did, therefore it was not necessary to demonstrate that he had a propensity to do that sort of thing. He wasn't acquitted because it was doubted that he had struck Mr Tomlinson, he was acquitted because it was doubted whether his actions constituted manslaughter. His previous conduct was not relevant to that issue.

But clearly the issue as to why he was allowed to remain in the police force is very relevant to any further action that is taken as a result of the trial.

Agreed.

hence why I said I know why this wasnt disclosed and debated whether that knowledge of (IMO) pertinent facts would have led to a different conclusion

That is not the reason. Evidence of either similar fact or character may be prejudicial in ANY case. If it wasn't, nobody would be trying to get it in!

The issue is whether its potential probative value outweighs its potential prejudicial effect. Clearly, the court here must have decided that it did.


On the very limited reports I read, there was indeed a real dispute by Harwood over what he did. But again, it was not his propensity to do the actions that was the point, but his "mens rea", ie his intentions, the reasons for doing them, the explanation for why he did what he indisputably did.

He was not acquitted because it was doubted whether his actions constituted manslaughter. He was acquitted because the prosecution failed to convince the jury beyond reasonable doubt that those indisputable actions, in the particular case of a police officer on duty, were or were not the exercise of reasonable force which a police officer has the right to use. Thus a question of what he believed, not what he did, but why he did it. He claimed he only used what he then judged to be reasonable force. At his trial he said he now accepts he was wrong.

His story was that he believed Tomlinson was being obstructive. He said he turned to reasonable force to make Mr Tomlinson move: a baton strike to the leg, followed by a firm push.

Harwood also told the court that "if he had realised" Tomlinson was walking away from police lines at the time he "would not have gone near him".

''He had his back to me and his legs were moving.
I was faced with several possibilities .... he was walking away ... he was walking backwards ... he was jogging on the spot ... he was crabbing to the left ... he was crabbing to the right.
How the hell was I supposed to know?''

''Actually, I thought he was being too leisurely, you know, hands in pockets, dawdling ... so I thought ..........right mate, have some of this pent-up frustration!''

That seems to be about the gist of it