R v Simon Harwood
Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
Judgment Date | 24 July 2012 |
Subject Matter | Criminal |
Court | Crown Court |
IntheSouthwarkCrownCourt
MrJusticeFulford20thJuly2012
Between:
Regina
‐v‐
SimonHarwood
Judgment
Backgroundandsubmissions
1. ThisdecisionconcernstworeportsontheMail’sOnlinewebsiteconcerning
inadmissiblematerialrelatingtoallegedearlierincidentsofviolenceonthepart
ofthedefendant.
2. On22May2012IdecidedinaRuling(handeddowninwriting)thatthe
prosecutionwasnotentitledtointroduceevidenceoftwoallegedprevious
incidentsofbadcharacter,namely:
FIRST:Materialrelatingtoaneventon25thMay2005whenthe
defendantwasallegedlyinvolvedwithanumberofotherofficersinthe
arrestofMr.Owusu‐Afriye.Itisallegedheusedunnecessaryforceby
deliveringakneestriketotheleftsideofMr.Owusu‐Afriye’storso,inthe
areaofhiskidneys.
SECOND:Evidencerelatingtoanincidenton24thNovember2008when
thedefendantwasinvolvedwith5otherofficersinstoppingand
searchingthevehicleofMr.JuniorSamms,anAApatrolman.Theconduct
ofthedefendantissaidtohavebeentheworstofthepolicemenwho
haddealingswithMr.SammsinthatitisallegedhetwistedMr.Samms’
armwhenhewashandcuffedandrepeatedlytoldhimto“shutup”.
3. Inotedthat:
“[…]insupportofthetwoincidentstheprosecutionhavelimitedtheir
applicationtocallingtwowitnessesonly:MrWard(apassingmemberof
thepublic)asregardstheincidenton25thMay2005andMr.Sammsfor
theeventson24thNovember2008.TheProsecutiondoesnotproposeto
callMr.Owusu‐Afriye,PoliceConstablesCalver,Jury,LeungandWilson,
PoliceSergeantPaulandadoctorfortheincidentconcerningMrOwusu‐
AfriyeandPoliceConstablesWalker,MitchellandJackamanandPolice
SergeantBowmanandafurtherofficerfortheincidentconcerningMr
Samms.Thevariouspoliceconstableswerepresentatbothevents(Police
SergeantPaulwasalsopresentwhenMrOwusu‐Afriyewasdetained)and
theirstatementsinvaryingdegreessignificantlycontradicttheaccounts
ofthetwocomplainants.
4. Againstthatbackground,Iconcluded:
“[…]Ihavenodoubtthatpursuanttosection101(3)thismaterialwould
havesuchanadverseeffectonthefairnessoftheproceedingsthatthe
courtoughtnottoadmitit.Thejurywouldineffecthavetoconduct
threetrials,thefirstrelatingtotheindexoffenceandtheothertwo
concerningtheaccused’sallegedpropensitytoactinthemanneralleged
againsthimon1stApril2009.Themixedfactualandlegalissueswould
becomeexcessivelycomplex,inthatthejurywouldneedtoensurethat
theirapproachtothelegalelementsoftheindexoffencewasonly
properlyinfluencedbytheirfactualfindingsreachedtothecriminal
standardinrelationtoallthreeincidents.Giventhefactsonthecentral
incidentarenotnecessarilyatallstraightforward,toaddtwostrongly
disputedadditionalallegationsforthepurposesadvancedbythe
prosecutionwouldundoubtedlyputthefairnessoftheseproceedingsin
jeopardy.”
5. NotwithstandingthatRuling,priortothecommencementofthistrialitwas
broughttomyattentionbythepartiesthatanumberofwebsitesrunbyvarious
newspapersandatleastonebroadcastercontainedarticlesthatwerereadily
availableanddatedbackto2010,inwhichunprovenallegationsmadeagainstPC
Harwoodwererehearsed(theseincludedtheMail,theTelegraph,theMirror
andChannel4News).Bywayofexample,therecontinuedtobereadilyavailable
ontheMail’sOnlinewebsite(certainlyuntillateinthetrial)
thefollowingextractthatistakenfromalongerarticleentitled“’Cover‐up’
stormoverG20death:FuryasDPPrulespolicemanwhohitnewsvendorwon’t
becharged”(dated23July2010):
To continue reading
Request your trial