AN undercover policeman who suffered a stroke caused by the stress of a botched "bugging" operation has won a é2m payout.

The Greater Manchester detective was left physically and mentally drained after he tried to attach a tracking device to a car belonging to a violent gang of robbers drinking in a nearby pub.

He had to return to the car on NINE occasions and reattach the device because the batteries which powered it kept failing.

Two days later, he suffered a stroke and he continues to suffer psychiatric problems.

The officer embarked on a legal battle with Greater Manchester Police after the incident in 1997 and initially lost his case, but won on appeal.

Today, we can reveal the details of the officer's legal and financial victory.

Police Authority papers seen by the M.E.N. show that the officer has been offered a é1m lump sum, plus é70,000-a-year for the rest of his life.

The document estimates the remaining cost of the claim at é1.97m - and according to the papers, the offer was accepted by the officer. Police sources have confirmed the bills will be met by GMP following the bankruptcy of the insurers who provided cover at the time of the incident.

Psychiatric

The force was liable even though the officer was seconded at the time to the now-defunct Regional Crime Squad.

It is understood that the officer, now 45 - the M.E.N. is not naming him for security reasons - still struggles with a psychiatric condition brought on by stress and could remain a target for the gang. Medical evidence showed he suffered hypertension before the bugging operation.

In 2004, the Appeal Court heard the officer "drew the short straw" when detailed to attach the device. It repeatedly failed and he had to go back at least nine times, risking the possibility of being spotted by the gang.

He had a stroke two days later.

The Appeal Court heard the force had been "negligent" in failing to provide efficient equipment - there was a "very high failure rate" on the batteries. And the system of checking them "fell far below what could reasonably be expected". Due to the "repeated failure", he was exposed to "extreme or severe stress" which caused or "materially contributed" to the stroke.

The failure to provide adequate equipment, it was argued, was "culpable and avoidable".

A GMP spokesman said: "The trial judge found the Chief Constable was not responsible for the officer's stroke. The Court of Appeal overturned that decision, ruling that the circumstances either caused or made a material contribution to his stroke."

WHAT do you think of this compensation pay-out? Have your say.