A police officer who hit Ian Tomlinson with a baton and pushed him to the ground at the G20 protests has been found not guilty of manslaughter.

PC Simon Harwood, 45, of south London, denied the manslaughter, in April 2009, of Mr Tomlinson, 47, on the grounds that he used reasonable force.

Mr Tomlinson, was pushed as he walked away from a police line in the City of London. He later collapsed and died.

His family said they would be pursuing the case in a civil court.

It is not clear if that will be against PC Harwood as an individual or against the Metropolitan Police.

"After the unlawful killing verdict at the inquest last year, we expected to hear a guilty verdict - not a not guilty verdict and it really hurts," Mr Tomlinson's stepson Paul King, said outside the court.

"It's not the end, we are not giving up for justice for Ian."


Ian Tomlinson timeline

1 April 2009: Ian Tomlinson is caught up in a G20 protest. He collapses in the street and dies
4 April: Police say post-mortem examination show he died of "natural causes"
7 April: Video footage emerges of Mr Tomlinson being pushed to the ground by police officer
April 2009: Further post-mortem tests find cause of death was abdominal bleeding, caused by blow
22 July: Prosecutors say there will be no charges as there is no agreement on death cause
3 May 2011: Inquest verdict of unlawful killing
20 June 2011: PC Simon Harwood charged with manslaughter after review of inquest evidence
18 June 2012: PC Harwood goes on trial at Southwark Crown Court
19 July 2012: PC Harwood found not guilty

Members of Mr Tomlinson's family cried in the public gallery as the verdict was delivered at Southwark Crown Court.

PC Harwood, in the dock, and his wife, in the public gallery, also cried.

The jury of five men and seven women had considered their verdict for four days.

During the trial, the police officer accepted he was "wrong" to have hit and pushed Mr Tomlinson.

He said that, had he realised at the time that Mr Tomlinson was walking away from police lines, he "would not have gone near him".

Father-of-nine Mr Tomlinson, who was a heavy drinker who had slept rough for a number of years, walked 75 yards before he collapsed.

The Independent Police Complaints Commission has said PC Harwood will face internal Met Police disciplinary proceedings later in the year over his actions.

It's the fact that the outcome of these 'show trials' is so inevitable that sticks in my graw. Harwood is probably mates with the beak down the lodge ffs. How it can be argued that Harwood used 'reasonable force' when Tomlinson wasn't fucking well doing anything..

I can understand police stopping large groups of people from moving from one area to another, to an extent, but does anyone know why they would be stopping individuals from leaving the area? Particularly given the size of the area and the shops, businesses and homes included in that area?

Was nobody allowed to leave during the protest?

Just watched another clip on YT of Mr Tomlinson trying to leave via a small alleyway to get to his hostel. He was shouted at to turn back by a line of officers when there was literally just him, on his own, approaching them. It didn't look like they were even listening to whatever he may have been trying to explain to them.

Certainly, from the little vid images I've seen of the actual incident, you can quite clearly see Mr Tomlinson may be inebriated or quite possibly suffering from some sort of medical condition, for all the casual observer may be aware, simply by looking at his walking pattern and posture. Certainly, he at no point poses any kind of threat to anyone in his immediate surroundings, including the officer in question, who seems to have tracked Mr Tomlinson before taking action. What steps in your mind would you then take to decide that hitting and pushing a man in such a condition to the floor were the right ones?

I really don't know enough about police training to make an informed decision about that, but I do know enough about being a human being to realise that this was a judgement of error on behalf of the officer. You really don't need any further evidence to see that.

If Mr Tomlinson hadn't been struck on the head, thus causing him to fall to the floor (although I believe that his leg was also struck), thus causing the injury he sustained, thus causing internal bleeding, he would be alive today. No?

Yes I watched the other video showing him getting turned away from walking down the little alley as well. So they gave him no choice really did they? He does look like he's walking a bit funny, but as far as I know, he was on his way home from work and just got in the way. Or they got in the way... which ever way you look at it, there was no reason to twat him while he's just walking about.

It's sad but I'm not shocked,
Think about t this way, if they had convicted him how would they keep control when it goes off again? I assume this was a jury trial, how the fuck did they reach such a verdict, the guy even stated he was wrong to hit him, he then died, that is manslaughter by anyone's definition

According to The Independent, he faced 10 complaints in 12 years as a police officer.

In 2000, he resigned from the Met shortly before he was to face a hearing that he attacked a motorist while off duty, arrested the driver for assault and falsified his notes about the incident.

According to Tomlinson's lawyers, Harwood was to be disciplined but resigned and rejoined the Met three days later in a civilian role.

In 2005 he was alleged to have kneed a suspect in the kidneys while he lay on the ground. He was also accused of twisting the handcuffs of a manacled motorist he had stopped for a speeding offence.

Harwood has been accused of punching and throttling other suspects while in uniform in other alleged incidents, according to the Tomlinson trial prosecution lawyers.

Another complaint came from a 14-year-old girl who claimed he racially abused her.

The only charge proven against Harwood was in 2008 when he admitted unlawfully using a police computer to check details of a motorist.

The allegations against Harwood were not revealed to the jury at the Tomlinson trial and emerged only after he was acquitted.

PC Simon Harwood’s house falls down after he uses ‘reasonable force’ to open front door
PC Simon Harwood not guilty

PC Simon Harwood, who was found not guilty of causing the death of Ian Tomlinson despite video evidence showing him doing it, has narrowly avoided serious injury after using what he decribed as ‘reasonable force’ to open his front door.

PC Harwood described how his front door had obstructed him in the course of getting into his house by failing to comply with his request for entry.

“The door was deliberately getting in my way,” he said.

“I asked it to open, but depite repeated warnings it continued to ignore my requests.”

“It was at this point that I took reasonable steps to gain access to my property by commandeering a double decker bus and forcing the door open at high speed.”
PC Hardwood not guilty

Pc Harwood denied that his actions were excessive by insisting that the door had been causing problems earlier in the day.

“I was cleaning up my kitchen after I smashed up the sink following an incident involving a stubborn lid on a jar of marmalade.” he explained.

“There was a disturbance coming from the hallway that sounded like a knocking coming from the door.”

“The wife had forgotten her key, so I had to throw the television set through the living room window to let her in.”

After he was found not guilty of manslaughter, PC Harwood, 45, was also involved in an altercation with a bottle of champagne.

“The cork refused to come out,” he said

“So I burned down an off license.”

...and apparently there is a demo at Scotland Yard as we speak.

Bring cameras, film every fucking move the cops make

If a member of the public were caught on camera in a shopping center attacking another member of the public in the same manor they would have been arrested and charged with murder. With such clear evidence they would no doubt be found guilty and sentenced.

Tomlinson Family statement following Harwood 'not guilty' verdict

In April 2009, along with everyone else, we saw the shocking video of Ian being violently assaulted by PC Harwood just minutes before he died.

After the unlawful killing verdict at the inquest last year - we expected to hear a guilty verdict today. The NOT guilty verdict really hurts.

But this is not the end, - we are not giving up on justice for Ian. There has to be one formal and final answer to the question “who killed Ian?”. And we will now pursue this in the civil court.

The last three years have been a really hard uphill battle. We have had to deal with many obstacles, set backs and emotions on the way. It has been hard to keep going sometimes, it feels hard to keep going today. We do take strength from the support that we receive from so many members of the public. Thank you.

And thank you also to Lucy Apps for the compassion you showed to our dad when you tried to save his life and comfort him on Cornhill that day.

I have nothing more to say now. Thank you.


Statement from Jules Carey of Tuckers Solicitors - civil lawyers of the family

This is one of the hardest days for the family, and there have been many:

The morning an officer told them Ian was dead,
the day they first saw that video,
the day an investigator said it might be a protester in a policeman’s uniform,
the day the pathologist changed his evidence about finding 3 litres of blood,
the day the CPS said that wouldn’t charge the officer of any offence

PC Harwood may have been acquitted of manslaughter by this jury, but another jury, at the inquest a year ago, found that Ian Tomlinson had been unlawfully killed. It is impossible for this family to understand these two, apparently contradictory, verdicts.

Ian Tomlinson’s family have not given up on justice. They will now look to the civil courts to reconcile these verdicts, deliver justice and formally answer the question “who killed Ian Tomlinson?”.

It is a terrible truth that in the last 30 years there have been over a thousand of deaths in custody and after contact, there have been many unlawful killing verdicts but there is not one case of an officer convicted for manslaughter.

Those entrusted with investigating and prosecuting these cases will need to reflect hard on today’s verdict and the unbroken chain of similar verdicts.

Statement from organisation INQUEST

Deborah Coles, co-director of INQUEST said:

"This verdict is a damning reflection of the systemic problems inherent in the current investigation system where deaths following police use of force are not treated as potential crimes. This failure has profound consequences on the proper functioning of the justice system in relation to such deaths.

"It is vital that the rule of law is upheld and applies equally to all, including police officers, and that they do not believe that they can act with impunity.

"For too long there has been a pattern of cases where inquest juries have found overwhelming evidence of unlawful and excessive use of force or gross neglect and yet no police officer either at an individual or senior management level has been held responsible."

Statement from Newham Monitoring Project - civil justice organisation who have supported the family campaign

"The message this verdict sends out to the wider public is that accountability systems are still failing and that police officers appear free to act above the law. The question of how Ian Tomlinson met such a tragic and sudden death still remains unanswered leaving a stain on British justice."