25th January 2026
More than a decade on, the case of the late Mr Michael Parnell, a Bredbury resident who repeatedly came into contact with police and council authorities before his death, continues to raise troubling questions for members of the local community.
Mr Parnell, who died in 2012, had been involved in a long-running dispute relating to his attendance at Stockport Council meetings, during which police were repeatedly called. Supporters say his attempts to ask public questions and participate in meetings were treated as a matter for enforcement rather than engagement.
Following his death, concerns were raised about the cost, proportionality and justification of repeated police interventions, as well as the role of senior officials responsible for oversight.
In December 2013, a formal complaint was submitted to the Office of the Greater Manchester Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) regarding the actions of the Police Authority’s Chief Executive at the time, Russell Bernstein. The complaint alleged a failure to investigate matters relating to Mr Parnell’s treatment and raised concerns about impartiality.
However, in a letter dated 9 January 2014, seen by the Romiley Gazette, the PCC’s office rejected the complaint.
The letter, signed by Nigel J Battersby, Solicitor to the PCC, stated that no formal investigation had been requested at the relevant time and that the complainant did not have the necessary legal standing under the Police Reform Act 2002 to act on Mr Parnell’s behalf. It also noted that Mr Parnell himself had not made a direct complaint to the Police Authority prior to his death.
The PCC’s office further stated that policing decisions relating to Mr Parnell had been reviewed by a Greater Manchester Police inspector, who advised that officers had exercised restraint in what were described as “grey legal areas”.
On that basis, the letter concluded that there was “nothing that required any further investigation” and that the PCC did not possess investigatory powers over operational policing decisions in any event.
Campaigners and local residents, however, say the response illustrates a systemic gap in accountability, where responsibility is repeatedly passed between institutions, leaving families and members of the public without meaningful redress.
One local resident told the Gazette:
“Every door that was knocked on was closed on a technicality. Oversight bodies say they have no powers, while operational bodies say they followed procedure. Meanwhile, a man is dead.”
Mr Parnell’s supporters argue that the absence of wrongdoing findings does not answer broader questions about fairness, proportionality, and the human impact of repeated enforcement actions against individuals engaging in local democracy.
Since 2017, the role of Police and Crime Commissioner in Greater Manchester has been absorbed into the office of the elected Mayor. Calls remain for historical cases such as Mr Parnell’s to be reviewed under modern standards of transparency and public accountability.
As one campaigner put it:
“This isn’t about revenge. It’s about learning lessons — and making sure no one else falls through the cracks.
