Bully Sgt Toby Knight who was demoted, now promoted to Inspector and deals with GMP Police Complaints

Inspector Toby Knight of Greater Manchester Police (GMP) regards himself as an experienced police officer of some 27 years, as he quotes proudly. He fails to announce, though, that in 2007, he was shamefully demoted from the rank of  Sergeant to the lowest rank (PC) in 2007 for bullying a female colleague by handcuffing her to a staircase, causing injuries to her wrists. Read about that on the Manchester Evening News website

Of the 27 years, the latter 17 of them are as a shamed police officer and proven misogynist bully, a reputation that will remain with Inspector Knight for life.

Although the then Sgt Toby Knight was held to account at a disciplinary panel for his conduct (by demotion to the rank of PC), Knight was not charged with any criminal offence (which he had committed). Such offences would be Assault on a police constable in the execution of his duty (section 89 Police Act 1996), False Imprisonment contrary to Common Law or Common Assault contrary to s39 Criminal Justice Act 1988.

Although Inspector Toby Knight undeniably committed a (or several) criminal offence, he was spared prosecution. In fact, there appears to be no mention of any consideration of his criminality, which is most likely because he is a police officer (one of the boys), providing substance to the belief that the police protect their own.

Imagine if you or I handcuffed a serving police officer to a staircase against her will… (I think a prison sentence would be imposed).

Ironically, Inspector Toby Knight is now tasked with reviewing complaints against fellow police officer, and is alleged to be protecting them.  Inspector Toby Knight was tasked to overlook a complaint against a serving GMP police officer, PC Travis.

PC Travis is accused of an unlawful arrest and abuse of police powers.

Inspector Mycock, previously reported on this website here, is accused of abusing his police powers to hinder a police complaint, potentially committing the offence of Perverting the Course of Justice or Misconduct in Public Office.

For both officers, Inspector Toby Knight finds no wrongdoing, but in a 53-minute recorded telephone call, Inspector Toby Knight is believed to have abused police powers.

Complaint against PC Travis

The complaint against PC Travis is that

  1. she made an unlawful arrest,
  2. she failed to correctly apply the necessity requirements of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE)
  3. She failed to review available evidence that would have shown that no crime had been commited.

If the complaint allegation againt PC Travis is proven, she may face a misconduct or criminal proceedings and, based on that, the hearing or criminal charges, therfore, the complaint, if not upheld, must be allocated to the IOPC as the relevant appeal body.

It is important at this stage to note that the complaint against PC Travis was submitted via the IOPC website here

It is also important to note that this complaint mechanism is NOT handled to the IOPC, as the page clearly states:

When you make a complaint on this page, your complaint is sent directly to the police force or organisation concerned, for them to consider.

The reason this is important is that Inspector Toby Knight beleives that by submitting a complaint via this IOPC form, this indicates that the complaint was made directly to the IOPC, and that the IOPC therefore have deemed it not worthy of the IOPC to be involved, and the compalint is referred to the relevant police force (GMP in this case), and, Inspector Toby Knight goes on to say, this also means that the relevant appeal body is not the IOPC, but is the Greater Manchester Combined Authority (i.e, Greater Manchester Police).

Inspector Toby Knight knows, or ought to know he is wrong. He is afterall, an Inspector of many years (albeit most of them as a shemed officer) and he has also faced the wrath of the police complaint system.

The IOPC rules cleary state in their published FAQ  here

3. What is a ‘relevant appeal body’?

A relevant appeal body is the organisation that will deal with your appeal. This is either the chief officer of the police force (usually the chief constable) or the IOPC. In order to decide who the relevant appeal body is, the complaint is tested against a list of circumstances. These circumstances are listed in question 4 below. When you are told about the outcome of your complaint, the letter will explain whether you can appeal and, if so, to whom you can appeal. If the chief officer of the police force is the relevant appeal body, they can assign a chief inspector (at least) or another police staff member at an equivalent level, to deal with your appeal. The appeal can’t be dealt with by anyone who has had any involvement in your initial complaint.

 

4. When is the IOPC the ‘relevant appeal body’?

The IOPC is the relevant appeal body in the following circumstances:

  • for matters about the non-recording of a complaint
  • for a complaint about the conduct of a senior police officer, which is someone who is above the rank of chief superintendent
  • when the appropriate authority cannot decide from the complaint alone that the conduct complained about (if proved)
    • would not justify criminal or misconduct proceedings
    • involves the infringement of Article 2 (right to life)
    • involves the infringement of Article 3 (prohibits torture, and inhumane or degrading treatment) of the Human Rights Act
  • if the complaint has been, or must be, referred to the IOPC according to the mandatory referral criteria.
  • if the complaint arises from the same incident as a complaint that satisfies any of the points above

On the basis that, from the ‘complaint alone‘, the officer is accused of an unlawful arrest, and abuse of police powers, and that, if either of those accusations are proven, criminal or misconduct proceeings would be justified, that means, the the IOPC is the relvant appeal body.

Listen to what Inspector Toby Knights says.

 

 

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*