All of Greater Manchester Police’s 8,000 officers are to be retrained after a man lost an eye and suffered a broken leg when he was arrested.
Paul Molyneux, 43, suffered the injuries as he was being arrested by Sgt Paul Jackson and Pc Michael Prendergast.
The officers were charged with grievous bodily harm with intent following an investigation. But the case collapsed after prosecutors decided that a statement given by Mr Molyneux could not be relied upon in court.
Now a report from the Independent Police Complaints Commission has recommended the two officers be removed from front line policing while they undergo refresher training. But the watchdog has also told GMP to ensure that officers across the force are better trained to deal with similar violent situations.
GMP has accepted the report and all its 8,000 officers are now being retrained. The IPCC said its investigation ‘raised real concerns’ about the amount of force used by Sgt Jackson and Pc Prendergast in detaining Mr Molyneux. But a senior GMP officer said Mr Molyneux had been ‘extremely violent’.
The incident took place at Hitchen Foods in Higher Ince, Wigan, in June 2007. Mr Molyneux, who was high on amphetamines, believed staff were demons.
Police were called and during his arrest he suffered a fractured right cheekbone and fractured right eye socket.
But at Liverpool Crown Court last September no evidence was offered against Sgt Jackson and PC Prendergast and they were formally acquitted. The IPCC has now decided a disciplinary hearing should not take place.
Instead it has decided that the officers receive formal advice and undergo refresher training in the use of self-defence tactics and the legislation and principles covering the use of force.
Both officers will need to pass written and practical examinations before being reinstated to operational duties and allowed to carry batons and CS spray.
IPCC Commissioner Naseem Malik said: “Our investigation highlighted real concerns about the force used by these officers in detaining this man.
“The evidence collected as part of our investigation supports the view that excessive force was used.”
He added: “I appreciate they were handling a difficult situation on that night but it is important they understand the level of concern around their actions.”
Assistant Chief Constable Garry Shewan said: “GMP agree with the findings of the IPCC report and regret the serious injuries that this man suffered. We must however take into account the volatile and hostile situation that the officers were faced with on that night.
“This man, who suffers from mental health issues, had taken a considerable amount of amphetamines that night which affected his behaviour. He acted in an extremely violent and unstable manner and continued to fight against every effort made to restrain him.
“He not only posed a serious risk to the officers and members of the public, but also to himself.
“This however, does not excuse the fact that this man suffered serious injuries and as a result we immediately removed these officers from front line operational duties following the incident in June 2007.”
Mr Molyneux’s family are pursuing a civil claim for damages against GMP.
Tweet
Showing comments 1 to 25 and replies | View All
salfordrat (08/03/2010 at 12:40)
Why do I worry that the police are no use to me or my family when we see that they welcome violent psychopaths (that is surely what you would call members of the public who carried out such an obviously violent and sustained assault)into their ranks?
Why do so few people have so little good to say about the British police force these days?
Why why why is this country becoming more and more violent and lawless (because the law themselves are violent and lawless perhaps?)
I will leave it up to the usual posters to defend these two sick animals and bleat on about how this guy deserved everything that happened to him because he had taken drugs etc etc ad nauseum.
As for my own questions - they don't really need answering. All the answers are in the story. I truly hope this guy gets a good 100k at least out of this - then I hope he spends it on a civil prosecution and makes a million. Scumbag cops and scumbag robbers are different only in dress.
seriously (08/03/2010 at 12:54)
Just two stories about GMP in one day.
To anyone who encounters them in a work capacity..not a suprise.
Father Time, Elsewhere (08/03/2010 at 13:26)
bluwes , Manchester UK (08/03/2010 at 13:30)
Did you actually read any of the article or are you completely anti police that you can't see that police officers need to use force in certain circumstances.
Maybe you should read this bit, if you can.
This man, who suffers from mental health issues, had taken a considerable amount of amphetamines that night which effected his behaviour. He acted in an extremely violent and unstable manner and continued to fight against every effort made to restrain him. He not only posed a serious risk to the officers and members of the public, but also to himself.
Careless Whisper (08/03/2010 at 13:35)
minority report, Derby, UK (08/03/2010 at 13:41)
The government must be made culpable for much of this new approach. Despite ministers claims, the government has given the police more powers and reduced answerability, as well as bringing in over 4000 new crimes and draconian anti-terror (and anti-democratic) laws which are too swingeing and are regularly misused by the authorities.
Decent police officers who want a different style of policing must feel disillusioned by what is happening.
margaret west (08/03/2010 at 14:03)
Alan Partridge, Linton Travel Tavern (08/03/2010 at 14:07)
It saddens me to hear people then accuse these two police officers of being animals and suggesting they would be pleased with the injuries this man sustained, I’m sure they are not; they did however what they employed to do and protected innocent members of the public from a violent unstable man. In other countries these two officers wouldn’t have been in this position as they would have been in possession of a firearm and this man would have been shot dead.
With regards to compensation, what compensation does this man deserve? He deserves nothing. As for low lives like you ‘Salfordrat’ I hope that next time this man is high on a concoction of drugs he turns up at your front door, you wouldn’t have a clue what to do and I’m sure this will be the fault of the police service you so despise.
You’re clueless, absolutely clueless. There are some terrible police officers about but I can confidently say 99.5% do an honest job and want to help the public. It’s a shame the policing hierarchy can’t see this and so frequently act to please idiots like you who by conducting ‘witch hunts’, irrelevant of whether the police meet or exceed your expectations people like you will still despise them and the values the honest officers stand for.
TheRealWorld (08/03/2010 at 14:32)
Unfortunately, because these officers stopped this man, we are not able to reflect on what may have happened. He could have killed someone or even himself. He could have caused unimaginable injuries to innocent people.
And these officers should be tried by a judge and jury, not publicly named and shamed by the commisioner of the IPCC and made out to be found guilty.
I see the IPCC could not even get the case to court. What gives them the right to then speak publicly suggesting that they were guilty.
An absolute disgrace.
Salfordratcatcher, Ramsbottom (08/03/2010 at 14:33)
Salfordrat Did you actually read any of the article or are you completely anti police that you can't see that police officers need to use force in certain circumstances. Maybe you should read this bit, if you can.
Of course he/she didn't and if he/she did then he/she would not have understood it because of his/her bigotry against anything British including agencies such as the police. What he/she probably did do was to scan the article for any whiff of racism which would allowed her/him to make another idiotic comment on that issue.
Alan Partridge, Linton Travel Tavern
Excellent comment.
Ivor Rash, Oldham (08/03/2010 at 14:43)
jordy, Middleton (08/03/2010 at 14:46)
Anne Coates, Jersey Street (08/03/2010 at 15:01)
seriously (08/03/2010 at 15:03)
Of course the police have to use force.
But it has to be REASONABLE otherwise it is an assault..broken leg,fractured eye socket,fractured cheekbone...it is hard to conceive how that can be reasonable.
The police believe that once there is any sign of trouble they have the right to weigh in and give them a good hiding.That's not legal.Or moral.
Anyone remember Rodney King...?
Careless Whisper (08/03/2010 at 15:27)
Vote for David, tory land (08/03/2010 at 15:35)
Gringo The Mexican Mancunian (08/03/2010 at 15:47)
Casablanca, ex-Bury Road Convent, Rochdale (08/03/2010 at 15:54)
I too have worked in an acute ward and I have seen unnecessary and excess force used by staff. I have also seen how if you speak out you are breaking ranks and your current job and future references are jeopardised.
I have seen inspections where the inspectors never saw a service user; they just sat with the bosses having a cup of tea.
I was also a witness in a case involving GBH where the police arrested the wrong man, beating him up first, unfortunately before I had been asked to identify him and say it was not the perpetrator.
Of course, police, officials and health workers have a tough job, but they also have power over individuals which needs to be tempered by justice. Just assuming they caused these injuries in a well-meaning way is as prejudiced as assuming they were done maliciously.
Brook Lands (08/03/2010 at 16:05)
seriously
This is nothing like the Rodney King case where violent racist LAPD took turns in beating a man. Perhaps you could read the story again.
We don't get a lot of the details, we don't even know why he was being arrested in the first place all we know is 2 police tried to restrain him and it resulted in injuries.
I think unless one of us was actually there or we have access to a full account of what happened it'd be hard to make an accurate or fair comment.
Batfink, Manchester (08/03/2010 at 16:06)
Part of me is inclined to agree with you. However, I will say this: When studying martial arts and self-defence, there is a heavy emphasis on proportionate use of force in order to defend oneself while remaining on the right side of the law. Clearly, the best solution in a scrap is simply to use all that fitness to run off and live to fight another day. BUT there is an oft-used caveat that a heavily-drugged person may exhibit superhuman levels of strength or pain tolerance. This can be so extreme that breaking the leg of a violent junkie may have no effect at all, and the training guidance for such a situation (when cornered and with no way out)is to render the protagonist physically incapable (ie unconscious, or worse).
So, yes, I have seen the Police act overzealous, but not knowing this specific situation, this is a difficult one to call.
Mike, Manchester (08/03/2010 at 16:11)
TheRealWorld (08/03/2010 at 16:14)
Is it not innocent until proven guilty in this country?
I could name many a high profile case that has collapsed at court. The press would not, under any circumstances, print anything that suggested those on trial were guilty of anything.
Is Mr Malik above the law? Is he judge and jury? He is there to investigate, not release scathing statements against innocent men.
We give the power of judging people of this land to the judiciary. Them alone hand out the punishments based on the facts put before them.
If the police released this kind of statement after they botched a trial, they would be sued beyond belief.
I hope the police federation support these officers in clearing their names.
Jay B, oldham (08/03/2010 at 16:18)
sound like the do-gooders and criminals are still winning the fight. soon the police will be a useless as their fellow pcso's!
another idiot, Derby, UK (08/03/2010 at 16:19)
Fair enough, so what was your reaction to an innocent man being shot dead by police in London without any penalty, and the inquest jury prohibited from giving a verdict of Unlawful Killing? And what about people at the G20 protest being hit by batons when they were not attacking anyone, and a passer-by being hit so hard that he collapsed from internal bleeding?
Alan Partridge, “…In other countries these two officers wouldn’t have been in this position as they would have been in possession of a firearm and this man would have been shot dead.”
Like Jean Charles de Menezes. And no-one penalised or disciplined - the senior officer even promoted. If Salfordrat is “clueless” I wish someone would offer a clue about what actions have been taken against “terrible police officers” in the past. That would certainly help to please the “idiots” and reduce their fears.
paul salmon (08/03/2010 at 16:26)
That said, there remains something worrying when this man received such severe injuries. Whether some of us like it or not, there has been too many cases of police officers employing gratuitous violence when detaining civilians, sometimes completely innocent civilians at that.
I have personally witnessed or heard first hand accounts of such incidents, which I find particularly disturbing.
I truly sympathize with, and greatly appreciate and respect, the majority of decent, perfectly balanced police officers, men and women who bravely put themselves in danger in order to protect us the public from the violent element of society.
But I equally deplore the rogue individuals who use the uniform to indulge their own violent and dishonest tendencies, quite simply abusing a position of supposedly implicit trust. And ultimately letting down every decent copper out there in doing so, the men and women whose reputations and methods of policing are then questioned by a distrusting public.
Only these two individuals can know what really took place that fateful day. Hopefully they can look at themselves in the mirror and like what they see.
Paul, Whalley Range