GMP CC to be prosecuted for H&S breaches after man shot
Discussion
BBC News Mobile said:
The Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police (GMP), Sir Peter Fahy, is to be prosecuted for health and safety breaches after an unarmed man was shot dead in Cheshire.
Anthony Grainger, 36, was shot in the chest after the car he was in was stopped in Culcheth on 3 March 2012.
The Crown Prosecution Service believes there is "sufficient evidence" to prove that GMP broke health and safety laws.
The force said it noted the decision to prosecute Sir Peter.
Prosecutors have decided that the marksman who killed Mr Grainger should not face charges for murder, manslaughter or misconduct in public office because a jury would be likely to accept that he believed his actions were necessary.
The GMP operation in which Mr Grainger was shot involved armed officers stopping an Audi in a car park. The vehicle was stolen and had false registration plates.
A bullet fired by an officer passed through the windscreen and hit Mr Grainger, from Bolton.
It later emerged the unarmed father of two had been wrongly suspected of stealing a memory stick containing the names of police informants.
A CPS spokesman said: "It is alleged that there were serious deficiencies in the preparation for this operation that unnecessarily exposed individuals to risk."
Sir Peter Fahy, Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police, does not share criminal liability and will not have to appear in court
Sir Peter is accused of failing to discharge a duty under the Health and Safety at Work Act as he is "corporation sole" for the force, the CPS added.
This is a legal status and means that he does not share criminal liability or will personally have to appear in court.
A GMP spokesman said it was "important that these legal processes are allowed to take their course unimpeded in order to seek a resolution for both the family of Mr Grainger and the force".
The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) is currently investigating the death but will not publish its findings until the legal proceedings have ended.
An initial hearing will be held at Westminster Magistrates' Court on 10 February, the IPCC said.
If convicted, the force could face an unlimited fine.
The BBC's home affairs correspondent Danny Shaw said British police forces had been successfully prosecuted for health and safety breaches in the past.
The Metropolitan Police force was found guilty of endangering the public when officers mistakenly shot Jean Charles de Menezes at Stockwell Tube station in south London in July 2005.
Note that he is being prosecuted essentially as the 'front man' of the force.Anthony Grainger, 36, was shot in the chest after the car he was in was stopped in Culcheth on 3 March 2012.
The Crown Prosecution Service believes there is "sufficient evidence" to prove that GMP broke health and safety laws.
The force said it noted the decision to prosecute Sir Peter.
Prosecutors have decided that the marksman who killed Mr Grainger should not face charges for murder, manslaughter or misconduct in public office because a jury would be likely to accept that he believed his actions were necessary.
The GMP operation in which Mr Grainger was shot involved armed officers stopping an Audi in a car park. The vehicle was stolen and had false registration plates.
A bullet fired by an officer passed through the windscreen and hit Mr Grainger, from Bolton.
It later emerged the unarmed father of two had been wrongly suspected of stealing a memory stick containing the names of police informants.
A CPS spokesman said: "It is alleged that there were serious deficiencies in the preparation for this operation that unnecessarily exposed individuals to risk."
Sir Peter Fahy, Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police, does not share criminal liability and will not have to appear in court
Sir Peter is accused of failing to discharge a duty under the Health and Safety at Work Act as he is "corporation sole" for the force, the CPS added.
This is a legal status and means that he does not share criminal liability or will personally have to appear in court.
A GMP spokesman said it was "important that these legal processes are allowed to take their course unimpeded in order to seek a resolution for both the family of Mr Grainger and the force".
The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) is currently investigating the death but will not publish its findings until the legal proceedings have ended.
An initial hearing will be held at Westminster Magistrates' Court on 10 February, the IPCC said.
If convicted, the force could face an unlimited fine.
The BBC's home affairs correspondent Danny Shaw said British police forces had been successfully prosecuted for health and safety breaches in the past.
The Metropolitan Police force was found guilty of endangering the public when officers mistakenly shot Jean Charles de Menezes at Stockwell Tube station in south London in July 2005.
Streaky
He's not actually having to go to court or take any punishment though.
He's just basically the figurehead.
It's quite a bit of a misleading headline.
Totally 100% true, but also totally giving the reader the wrong impression.
However.
I wonder why they shot him?
Interesting that the cps said that they believed a jury would side with the police.
He's just basically the figurehead.
It's quite a bit of a misleading headline.
Totally 100% true, but also totally giving the reader the wrong impression.
However.
I wonder why they shot him?
Interesting that the cps said that they believed a jury would side with the police.
Snowboy said:
Interesting that the cps said that they believed a jury would side with the police.
That isn't what they said. What they did say was that he would likely have a defence. In any case, the jury wouldn't have been asked whether or not they 'sided with the Police', as that would be irrelevant; it would be down to the circumstances of the event and the actions of the individual.10 Pence Short said:
Snowboy said:
Interesting that the cps said that they believed a jury would side with the police.
That isn't what they said. What they did say was that he would likely have a defence. In any case, the jury wouldn't have been asked whether or not they 'sided with the Police', as that would be irrelevant; it would be down to the circumstances of the event and the actions of the individual.But, apart from clarifying what was meant you didn't actually add anything of value; in fact you actually cropped the question that was asked.
Thanks, you've been a great help.
Snowboy said:
Yes. I perhaps phrased that a little loosely - but I'm sure anyone who'd read the article and had a brain would have understood my meaning.
But, apart from clarifying what was meant you didn't actually add anything of value; in fact you actually cropped the question that was asked.
Thanks, you've been a great help.
You asked why they shot him. You've read the article. It tells you- he felt it 'necessary'. I imagine the necessity arises in some form of; when the officer feels there is an immediate threat to his own or others' well being.But, apart from clarifying what was meant you didn't actually add anything of value; in fact you actually cropped the question that was asked.
Thanks, you've been a great help.
10 Pence Short said:
Snowboy said:
Interesting that the cps said that they believed a jury would side with the police.
That isn't what they said. What they did say was that he would likely have a defence. The jury do not 'side with the police' but side with the law.
It is easier to cast doubt on the organisational side of the police action. If standard operating practices have been followed then one can accuse the police of following the book.
I like the CPS phraseology. Not that the police officer had cause to fire but that the jury would side with him/her. Nice.
The CC is not being prosecuted as such.
10 Pence Short said:
You asked why they shot him. You've read the article. It tells you- he felt it 'necessary'. I imagine the necessity arises in some form of; when the officer feels there is an immediate threat to his own or others' well being.
So you don't know.Thanks again for trying to help.
Anyhow, I wonder why they shot him?
Comparing this to the Duggan case and other shootings where the CPS have pushed it I wonder what he was doing.
Or, I wonder if the Duggan verdict had an impact in the CPS decision here.
BBC News Mobile said:
Prosecutors have decided that the marksman who killed Mr Grainger should not face charges for murder, manslaughter or misconduct in public office because a jury would be likely to accept that he believed his actions were necessary.
Derek, I am not sure how you can extrapolate anything from this statement, other than the officer would have a believable defence in law that would make acquittal more likely than conviction? Likeability or taking sides has absolutely nothing to do with it, according to the words above.anonymous said:
[redacted]
Accepting he was not a nice man, I still don't like the idea of shooting him just in case he might have a weapon. I believe a threat has to be identified before killing someone. There wasn't even reasonable belief that he had a gun, there was belief that he was fiddling in a glovebox.There seems to be a habit of shoot first, check for weapons later, hope a jury accepts the 'reasonable belief' line.
Rovingtroll walks with a limp due to the size of that chip on his shoulder.anonymous said:
[redacted]
That all seems reasonable.I'm just curious how this is different from other cases which the cps have pursued.
I wonder if theirs been a change of tack from the CPS and they may be a little less critical of tactical decisions, perhaps the Duggan case being considered the new benchmark - or if there was something markedly different in this case.
I doubt I'll ever know.
I just find it odd the cps aren't pursuing a shooting.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff