A WIRRAL police officer accused of assaulting a man on a train near Birkenhead has been cleared.

PC Paul Malpus, who as off-duty when the incident allegedly occurred, was discharged from the dock at Liverpool Crown Court.

It had been claimed that the 36-year-old constable started the incident and attacked the victim Leigh Allen - and then tried to hide his behaviour by getting him arrested for assault.

PC Malpus, of Grosvenor Road, Wallasey, was cleared of assault causing actual bodily harm and attempting to pervert the course of justice, both of which he denied.

Philip Boyd, prosecuting, told a jury that the two men were passengers on a train from Liverpool to Chester at 11.30pm on February 22 last year and both had been drinking.

CCTV footage was shown to the jury of 20-year-old Mr Allen walking through the carriages holding a bottle of vodka and talking to passengers.

"He sat down close to the defendant and indicated he recognised him and the defendant was not happy about that and they began to argued."

Mr Boyd alleged that PC Malpus hit him and after Mr Allen hit him on the head with the bottle, which did not break, PC Malpus punched him a number of times to the face.

PC Malpus arrested him and when the train arrived at Hamilton Square two British Transport Officers arrived on the scene and Mr Allen was taken to Wirral custody suite.

The officer told the court however that he had been acting in self-defence. He said that he had felt threatened and scared. He hit him first in self-defence because he feared he was going to be attacked.

THE WIRRAL GLOBE

he only punched him once to the face....

if someone hit me on the head with a bottle. i would punched them too.

Good on him!! If someone did that to me I'd hit him too. Too many scrotes like this think that they can get hammered and then do as they please and get away with it - it's about time someone got the better of them.

stupid innit, shouldn't of even gone to court......

waste of tax payers money.

Read it carefully - PC Malpus admits hitting Mr Allen FIRST, Mr Allen retaliated my hitting PC Malpus with the bottle.

Yeah, he was 'alleged' the PC hit him first!
You expect this from scrotums carrying bottles of vodka with them, but not from the police. Or do you?

First and foremost he was a human being who felt threatened and reacted in self defence. If Mr Malpas had been a waiter, for example, would anyone have thought it so shocking? Being a Police Officer does not make the potential consequences of being struck with a bottle any less severe. Most probably, because of his job, he saw the threat earlier than a "normal" member of the public would have, notwithstanding he had had a few drinks.

Despite popular belief, the Police are actually human

Police officers are not above the law and shouldn't be given any benefit of the doubt. In fact, because they are in a position of authority, they should be rightly placed under more scrutiny than your average Joe on the street. If Mr Malpas was a waiter you wouldn't give a toss if he was convicted or not, it would have just been two drunks scuffling on a train.

As it is he wasn't convicted, justice was served and he can continue to go about his career. Case closed as they say.

Isn't drinking on trains/public transport illegal anyway? If not, it should be.

I agree that they shouldn't be above the law, nobody should be, but nor should they be treated more harshly purely because of their job. The basic premise of the law is that it should be "fair and just for all". It only became a "newsworthy" story because of his job, which personally I think is wrong as none of us are purely our job, nor do the majority of us get so harshly judged for it!

It doesn't change the fact that had Mr Malpas been said waiter, I still would have said good on him for what he did.

Was the officer was treated harshly? I don't know but I think you assume he was. If Mr Malpas was a waiter and he got into a fight on a train in what way would that be any different to Mr Malpas the policeman getting into a fight on a train. Both would have to face the due process of the law.

Surely being a policeman wouldn't have done any harm to Mr Malpas defence? The other party in this fight, Mr Allen.. is now described as a 'scrote' because he ended up in a fight with a policeman. Is Mr Allen a chav thug? Maybe. Both men were drunk.

There's also mention of Mr Malpas 'perverting the cause of justice'. In what way I wonder? There's alot of detail missing in this story.

I'm not trying to defend the drunken young lad with the bottle of vodka but I'll be damned if I'm going to defend a drunken off duty policeman for getting into a fight on public transport.

I agree - should we walk away from a situation, as advised, or retaliate with violence? They should've BOTH been prosecuted - two drunks on a train. From face value of this story, it's blatant double standards.

This is sending out the wrong message altogether, it is saying that is ok for an drunken Off-Duty officer to hit somebody and then blame the other person and arrest them - whaaaaat?

@station - PC Malpas admitted he hit first, there is no alleged!

@Shambo - the perverting the cause of justice was because PC Malpas arrested Mr Allen indicating that Mr Allen was the perpatrator when in fact PC Malpas started the boxing match.

Well...If Mr Malpas struck Mr Allen and subsequently arrested him for fighting then PC Malpas is a very lucky man and hasn't been judged harshly at all. Certainly not behaviour to be applauded.

I doubt Mr Malpas the waiter would have been treated so leniently.

No, I didn't say that. I don't think that Police Officers, or anyone else in a "position of power" should be treated more harshly than the Average Joe. The media have jumped on this story purely BECAUSE of his job. I think that is unfair, hence the waiter analogy.



No, it is no different. Both did face the due process of the law. That is exactly my point - they should not be treated differently. See above reply.



He is indeed, as are the others of his ilk. Having been a nurse for a good many years, I saw the end result of the injuries and sometimes devastation that drunken "scrotes" leave behind through sheer drunken and bloody minded violence.



Indeed there is, having not been involved in the case and not having read any of the transcripts, I cannot pass judgement on the missing details.



And there lies the crux of my arguement! If he was the waiter, would you still be "damned to defend" him!?!







Once again, he is judged because of his job and NOT as an individual human being who felt threatened!



But that is just it - he would have been! The case was 2 individuals, not 1 individual and a "job".

oh fook me!
PC Malpas has the same right to use reasonable force in the execution of his duty as ANY person on the street is permitted by law to use reasonable force to defend themselves. FACT
THAT INCLUDES a premptive strike...IN LAW that IS permitted wether you are a Police officer or not. FACT

I doubt that a waiter would also be put in a postion that if he DIDNT do something about drunken idiot on the train he WOULD be done for negelct of duty.....ergo LOSS OF JOB/PENSION etc.

Not to mention as a Police Officer you are trained to defend yourself and effect arrest using physical restraint AND you by nature and experience are aware of the repercussions of the above and of what drunken idiots are capable of....

What a disgrace that a Police Officer was put before a court for doing his job....

@PJ as you are well aware, proffesional expertise is included in judging how responsible a person should be, can't remember the exact term now but I'm sure you know.

@Beemer - this was an OFF-DUTY DRUNK police officer, this is nothing to do with the execution of his duty, as you are aware. Premptive strikes are not permitted in law, reasonable force is, as he managed to arrest Mr Allen afterwards,surely he did not need to hit him in the first place he could have either constrained him as he did later or walked off. If Mr Allen had not retaliated then I am sure the outcome of this case would have been different.

What did PC Malpas hope to achieve by hitting Mr Allen, instant submission, or the effect it did have, getting thumped back and creating a dust storm over what actually happened.

This reminds me off the global defence of a police car speeding when it shouldn't be - I was just practicing, oh sorry was that a person in the way!

DD - Technically, words can constitute an assault, ergo by his comments (an assumption by myself as I have not seen the transcripts nor the CCTV footage), Mr Allen had effectively assaulted Mr Malpus. Due to this, one would deduce that Mr Malpus "feared the immediate infliction of force" and thus be within his legal rights as a human being to use such force as he deemed necessary, within the constraints of the law.

The basis of the fear possibly instilled in him that forced him to act thus may have been that he did not know what Mr Allen was going to do next, but feared that "sufficiently immediately" it was something of a violent nature.

It boils down to what is known as "proximity" and "intention".

The problem is that Mr Malpus will be effectively "tried" twice for the same crime. Once in the Court system and then no doubt at a Police Tribunal for a breach of the Police Code of Conduct. For this, if it were me, there would only really be one man I'd want at my side during a Tribunal but I'm not sure it would be correct for me to mention his name.

PJ you started by saying 'Good on him'. I would have to disagree. An officer of the law is expected, nay demanded, to behave in an lawful manner at all times, off duty or pissed or not. How an experienced, well trained officer of the law could be intimidated by a drunk 20 year old man, to the point where he thought he'd have to jump in first and punch him in the face doesn't IMO suggest someone who is fit to earn a lucrative salary as a police officer.

The media haven't jumped on this story, it's pretty tame stuff. I for one am very glad it was reported because if things like this weren't... the police could do any god damned thing they liked. It didn't reach court without somebody thinking there was a case to answer to.

You're referring to Mr Allen as some sort of menace to society when you have absolutely no idea who or what sort of person they are. You have, with prejudice, labelled this man as a 'scrote' and suggest that if any policeman wants to give him a slap, then thats a good thing. You go further and suggest that any member of the public would be quite entitled to punch him as well. You've never seen or met this man.

The fact that they were on a train, young, drunk and in possesion of a bottle of vodka doesn't automatically make them a menace to society. That Mr Allen engaged PC Malpas in conversation about anything, (AND I MEAN ANYTHING), does not give him the right to punch him in the face.

If I'm sat on a train and a drunk kid sat opposite me calles me a c*unt, if I punched his lights out I'm expecting to be arrested. But if I'm a policeman it seems I've got an escape clause.

Beemertastic - "He only punched him in the face once..." What? Really? Five or six times and he'd have a case? That's a shocking thing to admit and does nothing for my respect for the police.

Shambo - I wasn't the only one that said good on him.

You ask



I have to say that in the current climate with knife crime rocketing, you never know just what someone has on them or is capable of. As I say, having not seen the CCTV or read any witness statements or transcripts, I don't know how abusive Mr Allen had been to the other passengers, if at all. His decision to start arguing with Mr Malpus is, by legal definition, assault.



His ilk are, IMO, a menace to society. Too many law abiding citizens in this country are afraid to go out, day and night in some parts of the country, for fear of what may happen. We are constantly bombarded with news reports of people who have intervened or asked people to be respectful only to be attacked and in some sad cases, murdered. I never once suggested "that if any policeman wants to give him a slap, then thats a good thing"! My "suggestion" as you put it is that any member of the public, if in fear of attack or being attacked is, according to English Law, entitled to use reasonable force in self defence. Not my suggestion - Law.

Neither of us, as far as I am aware, have met either of them, yet you are also making sweeping statements about Mr Malpus. Neither of us knows what was said or how it was said - a threat may well have been made that lead to the incident, we just don't know.

We can go round in circles on this ad infinitum and never agree honey. Only 2 people know the truth and that's them two!! We can only speculate.


The only thing I will say is, you can't tar all the Police with the same brush.

I have to say ... and rightly so. The only good thing about media reporting is exposing professional double standards.

You may be of he opinion that knife crime is rocketing but it isn't. The British Crime Survey states that 'knife enabled crime' (any crime involving a knife) has remained stable for the last decade at 6-7% of all crimes committed. A relative increase if you consider that all recorded crime has dropped by 48% since it's peak in 1995.

If you choose to live your life in fear because of certain parts of the british media have sensationalised knife crime in recent months thats unfortunate. You certainly wouldn't be alone in thinking the world is becoming a more dangerous place, even if there is no evidence to back that claim up. It doesn't however justify policemen or citizens hitting out first and asking questions later.


You can walk into any bar in any part of the country at any time of the day and see two drunk people arguing. If the police are called to the scene is anybody going to be arrested for assault? Of course not, thats silly, it would be a waste of police and the courts time. Mr Malpas is a police officer who must have heard some choice phrases in his professional capacity. By legal definition verbal assault may be your justification for Mr Malpas actions however, and for me this is the crux of the matter, if it was me who had struck Mr Allen for arguing with me on a train, as a private citizen, I would expect to be arrested. If CCTV showed that I had struck the first blow then I would be very well advised to plead guilty to any charges and hope I was shown leniancy for being intimidated. If PC Malpas was being verbally assaulted, why didn't he restrain Mr Allen and place him under arrest?

Instead he punched him in the face and I think that is unacceptable. What is more disagreeable is that PC Malpas subsequently arrested Mr Allen and claimed it was him who started the fight. You state that "Despite popular belief, the Police are actually human", which of course they are, but if PC Malpas is to act with aggression whenever somebody argues with him then I don't believe he makes a good candidate for a police officer.

Or am I to believe that all police are saintly sorts of figures who are physically incapable of doing any wrong? Well...


You may believe Mr Allen and his 'ilk' are in need of some rough justice but thats a broad sweeping generalisation of anyone that basically you don't like the look or sound of. I'm not trying to tar all police with the same brush. I don't hold any grudge or prejudice towards the police. I do strongly believe that police officers should be setting an example of how to behave in public, on and off duty, drunk or sober and by the account given in this news story, PC Malpas actions haven't exactly covered himself in glory. Certainly not something to be uninvestigated, ignored by the media or applauded. Theres something about this story that smacks of double standards and I'm clearly not the only person who thinks so.

It's clear there's no way we are going to agree on this one PJ.

Nope - both too stubborn Fancy a pint instead

@shambo...
oh i believe your very much mistaken.
premptive strike IS permitted in law...check your facts.
MALPAS only punched him ONCE...FACT.
MALPAS wasnt drunk....FACT.
MALPAS was on duty technically...due to little know fact. Merseyside police have an agreement with the local train/bus operators whereby if we show our warrant cards we are permitted free travel on buses and trains within Merseyside. This is with the agreement of our Chief Constable.
Police are permitted to put themselves "back on duty" at anytime...and by displaying a warrant card in this manner you are putting yourself ON duty.
However the rider to this one is if you are unfit for duty (ie drunk/injured such as i have been) you are NOT able to use the warrant card in such a fashion. You must be fit and able to discharge your duty if you utilise this option of free travel.

MALPAS DID give numerous warnings to the male and told him to behave or he would be arrested. The male refused and carried on....
left with no choice MALPAS made the choice to arrest the male to not only protect members of the public but also to prevent any further offences occuring...(have a look at lawful reasons for arrest as per SOCAP 2006)....not just "assault him" as some act of mindless thuggery as implied by yourself.
Added to this MALPAS didnt have the necessary equipment on hand to restrain him....and by nature of restraining someone (and if youve ever had to do this you would know what im talking about) he have to dominate in order gain physical control.
ACPO approved techniques for control and restraint INCLUDE pre-emptive strikes and distraction blows prior to a restraining hold being used!
There was no issue with the arrest, however three witnesses came forward and gave varying accounts of what happened...all differed wildly...they all said they said different things when it was quite obvious that from their positions within the train that they COULD NOT HAVE SEEN what they said they did.
It was on examination of the CCTV and the MALPAS statement that DID tally...that the case was thrown out.

To sum up...you simply dont have the full FACTS to hand...and therefore make decisions based upon rumour and conjection.

i agree with shambo!

Beemertastic you might think I'm very much mistaken but despite your passionate defence of your colleague, you haven't said anything to make me change my mind on this subject. Way to close ranks though, I wouldn't have expected anything less.

Your assertion that Mr Malpus must have been sober because police officers aren't allowed to travel free on the trains when they're drunk is quite funny. I have to laugh because otherwise I'd be annoyed that you think I was stupid enough to accept that as an acceptable reason to belive Mr Malpus had to be sober.

That he punched Mr Allen in the face only one doesn't make that any more acceptable than twice or three times. Again I think you're insistance on emphasising it was just the one punch in the face shows an appaling attitude towards the public in general. Are you allowed to give villans the one dig in the face? No you are not.

Lets look at this 'pre emptive' thing. Mr Malpus gave Mr Allen ten seconds to 'fook off' or he warned him he would be arrested. Arrested for what? Talking to an off duty police officer on a train? Possesion of a bottle of vodka that could potentially be used as a weapon? Looking like a wrong'un? Telling him "I don't like Bizzies"? Mr Malpus can give whatever reason he wants at this point to justify his 'pre emptive' strike. Mr Malpus is a 36 year old, six foot three, experienced police officer who was was 'intimidated' by a pissed 20 year old. No matter what way I run this I can't help but think Mr Malpus over reacted.

If he was 'spooked' by this kid and lashed out at him that would seem a perfectly human explanation, especially if he had been drinking. That he then decided to arrest Mr Malpus for starting a fight would clearly be a perversion of justice. Whilst Mr Malpus was placing Mr Allen under arrest he was being told by the witnesses who came forward and made statements later that, "you can't do that".

Questions were asked about Mr Malpus conduct that needed to be answered. The alternative would be no checks or measures for police conduct. It certainly doesn't sound like a waste of taxpayers money to me. I'm a tax paying model citizen and I'm glad this happened. The court decided that these witnesses weren't close enough to the incident to disprove Mr Malpus version of events, so the case was dismissed.

I'll say it again, if I had been intimidated on a train and decided to make a 'pre-emptive' strike, nobody would be taking my word for the matter. Especially if, at a later date, several witnesses felt the need to state they though I was being overly aggressive. That was the reason for the investigation was it not?..that several witnesses felt compelled to make statements to the transport police with regard Mr Malpus aggressive behaviour?

There is obviously no way that I can prove or disprove either persons version of events, but from all the information I've been able to gather I am definitly of the opinion that PC Malpus can consider himself lucky not to have been convicted.

Hey have some comments been deleted from this thread? From this evening? Whats that all about?

Mine's gone, but if you taunt some one enough then they will react, the pissant got what he deserved.

Two of mine also, but I think perhaps it was because we were not on topic, we veered off ever so slightly. I was just trying to lighten the atmosphere - crashed and burned!!

This "debate" can continue ad infinitum, the fact remains that Mr Malpas has been judged in Court, the outcome of which is that he was cleared of the charges.

I very much doubt that will be the end of it for Mr Malpas, as previously stated, as he will most probably now end up facing a Tribunal for a breach of the Police Code of Conduct. Mr Allen, however, can walk away and get on with his life.

wow

Its nothing to do with closing ranks...had I felt he was out of order or had acted in such a manner that was unlawful...I wouldnt have defended him.
That comment I take a great deal of offence to...as my personal integrity is everything to me. To even suggest that I would "close ranks" for such a matter is indeed odieous to me.

Case in point...at crown court this very moment there is a Police Officer on a charge (amongst other) of drink driving.
I would like to think he will be found guilty (as i know the job) and hope they throw the book at him...and he WILL loose his job deservedly.
Going back to malpas...he wasnt drunk...fact....nothing to do with wether he used his warrant card etc...i was merely pointing out he was sober!
There was nothing to suggest even that Malpas was drunk....this is merely a erroneous bit of reporting that im challenging!!

I just happen to have my facts straight..and from a source direct...unlike yourself.

As for the single punch...if you knew anything about law..you would understand the significance of such a point with regard to reasonable force.
A single punch is far more reasonable in the eyes of the law than repeated punches/kicks/strikes when it has had the desired effect of incapacitating someone. Nothing to do with giving villans a "dig in the face" I would suggest.

As for anything ive said not changing your mind on the subject you demonstrate such a lack of comprehension with regard to the most basic points of law raised in this debate that it beggars belief that you feel able and suitably qualified to comment as you do....

Further to this whilst it is a free country...and having such a justice system as we do that permits and postively encourages freedom of speech.
A such I am permitted to voice my opinion..and you to voice yours.

However I feel that when your "opinion" is based on erroneous facts I have no choice but to challenge it.

still agree with shambo!because ive never seen a copper be violent to anyone honest!

Ok Beemer, I have seen you speak for and against in the past so I will take your word for PC Malpas especially as you are so adamant this time.

I was arguing because I disagree on principle that anybody is allowed to use a punishment that not even a Judge and Jury can dish out.

the problem is,if i hit someone (me being 6 ft 1 and 15 stone)smaller than me the police would laugh in my face if i said i felt intimidated!

Not neccessarily Dave! Just because you are tall and not "weedy" doesn't mean that you are unable to be intimidated! I'm not a small lass and have a gob on me sometimes, but put me in certain situations and maybe I would feel intimidated too. I'd give you an example but it's not something I would be willing to put on a public forum.

Each case is judged upon its individual merit and set of circumstances.

like the time a copper hit my knee wit a stick for chasin a lad that had jus bottled me?yeah they are always great the police!there are some great police officers though, i know from experience,that have done me some amazing favours.but then there is always one that ruins the whole perception of the police in general!

I know 4 coppers - 2 are very good friends whom I trust with my life, 1 is a mate but hardly speak now as he is down south.

The other is an ex (never off duty and would shop his own Nan) who warned me about some items I posess and said he would "overlook" them as long as they were not here when he next came round! Hence he is an ex

LoL.That`s the thing about coppers as they don`t switch off,even when they are out having a drink.They still like to procure thier authorisaton upon you.For christ sakes guys let your hair down.a job is an 8-12 hr day thing.Jees.

The ex was the only one like that so far Dava. Unfortunately, they are not really "allowed" to switch off. Same with Paramedics, Nurses, Doctors etc. Comes with the job I'm afraid. Although we were always told never to disclose that you were a Nurse, only a First Aider - less risk of a Law Suit if you crack a rib during CPR for example!!

Comes with the job I'm afraid.


Yeah,I have to agree really"thinking about it".After all it is these people we call upon in times of help and mercy.

Im the first to admit it..i really have extreme difficulty "switching off"...and even when I go on holiday...it takes me 3-4 days to switch off properly...it drives the missus nuts.

By the nature of the job you become hyper-aware of your surroundings,peoples mannerisms,clothing,actions,attitude and you notice obscure little details...all the time.

You cant afford to switch off or let your guard down...for that is all it takes for a situation to get out of control/a minor error at 100mph+ and things go tits up very very quickly...and thats when colleagues or yourself gets hurt...or even worse.
Ive seen it happen..and done it myself...and suffered the consequences!

its exhausting to be honest...and noticing everything...all of the time....isnt always a good thing!!

The job isnt a mon-fri 9-5 job...its a vocation...you either love it or hate it...but its in your system...and you cant just switch off at the end of a day....

and like you said..it comes with the job...