The flip side is, the 'victim' is an old soak who has basically drunk away his life. the cops wanted him to get a move on, he starts sauntering along with his hands in his pockets, some would see that (and I'm sure the cop in question did) as him taking the mick and delaying them in their job on a day where there was a lot of pressure on.
Should he have been hit? no way. Should they have picked him up and slung him in a van until he'd sobered up? Probably but I don't think this cop can be told he is 100% responsible for the chap's death.
If he'd pushed anyone else over, they'd have had a bruised knee. Because this bloke's body was failign him anyway (his own fault) he died. Its tragic and all but there has to be some portion of blame given to the sozzled bloke in the first place.
Kick him out of the force for not doing his job right but to sting him for manslaughter might be a bit far. What if the next protester smashing up the streets turns out to have an undiagnosed heart condition? The cops can't be asked to get a full medical of anyone that is acting like a tit in their presence can they?
That he had underlying medical issues is no mitigation in law - you take your victim as you find them. If you commit a
minor assault on someone, and they bang their head and die because they had a clot, or weakened blood vessel, or thin skull, you are still liable for manslaughter.
(NB If you intended to cause them GBH or to kill them, you are liable for murder. May I point out here that no matter how much the police-hating rabble and associated hangers-on bang on about Harwood being a murderer, he is not and can never be. There would be no way of proving he had the required intent and the rabble do the Tomlinsons a disservice by bleating on so).
So, a trial will have two foci.
1. was the push (and perhaps the baton strike) unlawful?
2. were the consequences of the push (and/or the baton strike) the cause of his death, or was there an intervening act or factor that caused him to die (in very very simple terms, would have have died anyway)?
What the DPP has to weigh up is whether Tomlinson was killed as a result of an unlawful act by Harwood and whether there is, a) a realistic prospect of a CONVICTION and b) whether it is in the PUBLIC INTEREST for the trial to proceed.
As far as a realistic prospect of conviction is concerned:
The inquest jury decided that yes, Tomilinson was unlawfully killed. This does not directly translate to a verdict of guilty in a criminal court (the Crown Court, in this case) because some of the evidence admissible in in the Coroners Court may be excluded from the Crown Court trial. The defence team will be looking for cracks in the evidence and to discredit both the way it was obtained and the person giving it. Once it is has had a few lumps taken out of it, the defence can argue to have it excluded for a whole host of reasons. Exclude one thing and often a whole host of other evidence derived from it is excluded also. Cases can then start to look very thin indeed.
Another thing to be aware of is that you now have to find 12 jurors who know little or nothing of the inquest (tricky) in order for Harwood to receive a fair trial and his defence Barrister would be able to use this to try and have the trial discontinued.
The public interest test is met, but this in and of itself is not sufficient for a prosecution to take place.
These are the rules by which all trials are held, so it might seem as if he has a good chance of 'getting away with it' in the eyes of some, but will be rightly 'not guilty' in the eyes of others.
It's actually quite hard to get a conviction in a Crown Court (juries are notoriously unpredictable). Who knows? Time will tell.