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.

Sacked for gross misconduct, but allowed to keep his pension.



Nice.



[urlhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19620627[/url

If you had contributed to a pension scheme at your company and then got the push for a serious incident, would you think it ok to lose all your pension. He has lost his job (quite rightly) and any future pension he might have got.

I believe he would have lost his pension rights if he'd have been convicted of the crime with which he was charged. So legally, you're correct, he is still entitled. The greater powers would be better looking into why an officer who retired on ill health from one force, whilst under investigation, was then re-employed by another.

I assume that he was given a medical and proved fit to return, which has no bearing on his offence. We have to accept the the decision of the jury and the rules that apply with regards to the pension on dismissal, he did not put them in place and until they are changed we have to lump it.

Aye, and his pension might come in handy if the family of the deceased partake in a civil action that produces a positive verdict?