8th September 2025
Why wouldn’t Stockport Council allow this CCTV evidence, which subsequently exonerated Mr Parnell at appeal, to be shown at his original trial?
Romiley, 8 May 2011
A local resident raised serious concerns over the Crown Prosecution Service’s handling of a case involving a Stockport citizen, Mr. Parnell.
In a strongly worded email to the Stockport Crown Prosecution Service, the resident questioned why the case was brought to court, citing alleged deficiencies in the evidence presented. The email references the Code for Crown Prosecutors, highlighting the requirement that cases must meet both evidential and public interest tests before proceeding.
The resident points to CCTV footage which, according to the email, contradicts claims of an alleged assault, describing the prosecution as “malicious” and “utterly stupid.” The email also claims that witness testimony from local council employees was unreliable, and suggests that the case was fabricated.
“I respectfully suggest that no further sham prosecutions are brought against Mr. Parnell,” the email states, adding that the police have now ceased arresting him. The sender also warns the CPS that future actions against Mr. Parnell without credible evidence may result in legal challenges.
Attempts to obtain a comment from the Crown Prosecution Service were not immediately successful.
This case raises broader questions about the evidential standards required before bringing individuals to court and the reliability of witness testimony in local council matters.
