Officer 'feared he would be killed' after being attacked by own baton
The assault only ended when a badly wounded PC O'Donnell was able discharge incapacitant spray into his eyes - although Davies still later went on to kick another officer.
He is now behind bars after he admitted his guilt during a hearing at the High Court in Glasgow.
Davies had fled a house after an argument with a woman there had led to police being called.
PC O'Donnell - a trained dog handler - went on to find Davies in a desolate area of nearby woods that night.
The tattooed thug yelled at him: "You are not going to arrest me." He continued to be aggressive as the officer tried to calm him.
PC O'Donnell shouted: "Police with a dog. Stay where you are or I will send the dog."
But, instead, Davies ran at the constable, wildly swinging punches while screaming: "Let it bite me."
The dog repeatedly got hold of Davies, but the thug still lashed out hitting PC O'Donnell.
The officer tried to sweep his legs away and pin him to the ground.
Read More
PC O'Donnell called for back-up before Davies grabbed his body armour and was on top of him.
Prosecutor Stewart Ronnie: "PC O'Donnell struggled to escape. They both rolled down a hill and the officer ended up in a seated position.
"Davies stood behind and began to strike blows on top of his head.
"The officer noticed these were significantly stronger than ones earlier.
"When each landed, he saw stars and felt significant sharp pain on his head. PC O'Donnell was now in fear of his life."
The constable was stricken on the ground as crazed Davies then bit through the top of his ear.
He was unable to defend himself, but eventually managed to wriggle free.
It was then PC O'Donnell was able to push Davies away and discharge his incapacitant PAVA spray into his eyes. Two other officers then turned up to help their bleeding colleague.
The court heard, after Davies was arrested, PC O'Donnell "collapsed to his knees, dizzy, exhausted and in severe pain".
He was then taken to hospital. It emerged he had been repeatedly whacked with his police baton.
PC O'Donnell luckily suffered no fractures, but has been left scarred for life from the injuries.
He was off work for four weeks and continues to receive trauma counselling.
The officer remains conscious of his scars.
The court heard that, after Davies was held, he booted another officer while in the police van.
Davies - who already had convictions for violence - pled guilty to assaulting PC O'Donnell to his severe injury and permanent disfigurement.
He had initially faced an attempted murder allegation.
Mark Stewart KC, defending, said Davies realised he should have stopped when faced by police, but that "one thing led to another and matters got out of hand" that night.
Lord Mullholland remanded Davies in custody as sentencing was deferred for reports.
The judge told him he would have been looking at a jail-term "well into double figures" had he been convicted of the original charge, but that he was still facing a "significant sentence".
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mirror
an hour ago
- Daily Mirror
British Airways killer Robert Brown to be quizzed in jail as he makes fresh freedom bid
Robert Brown is due to go before a Parole Board panel for a two-day hearing as he bids to be freed - more than 15 years after he killed his estranged wife Joanna Simpson Evil British Airways killer Robert Brown will be quizzed by experts behind bars as he launches a fresh bid for freedom. The pilot bludgeoned his estranged wife Joanna Simpson to death with a claw hammer and then buried her in a pre-dug grave. Brown, 60, was due to be freed in November 2023 after serving just half his sentence. It sparked an angry backlash from Joanna's mother and the government which challenged the decision. Now, Brown is due to go before the Parole Board with a date set of January 12 and 15 for a two-day hearing. A panel of experts will interview him and see what progress he has made in prison. The couple's two young children were within earshot when he attacked her in the family home on Halloween 2010. He then buried her in a pre-dug grave at Great Windsor Park. Brown was jailed for 26 years for manslaughter, after arguing that he was suffering from adjustment disorder at the time of the attack. Joanna's mother Diana Parkes launched a public campaign to block the move - saying she thought he would find a way to hurt her grandchildren if freed. The then Justice Secretary Alex Chalk stepped in and used his Powers To Detain to stop him from getting out of prison, which was challenged in the High Court but upheld. During the Judicial Review held last year, the court heard Brown showed "no remorse" and could be at risk of killing again. The MoJ argued he was a "significant risk of serious harm" due to "non-engagement" with probation officers. He had also not completed accredited courses to recognise his offending.. But now a Parole Board spokesperson has said: "An oral hearing has been listed for the parole review of Robert Brown and is scheduled to take place in January 2026. Parole Board decisions are solely focused on what risk a prisoner could represent to the public if released and whether that risk is manageable in the community. 'A panel will carefully examine a huge range of evidence, including details of the original crime, and any evidence of behaviour change, as well as explore the harm done and impact the crime has had on the victims. "Members read and digest hundreds of pages of evidence and reports in the lead up to an oral hearing. 'Evidence from witnesses including probation officers, psychiatrists and psychologists, officials supervising the offender in prison as well as victim personal statements are then given at the hearing. "The prisoner and witnesses are then questioned at length during the hearing which often lasts a full day or more. Parole reviews are undertaken thoroughly and with extreme care. Protecting the public is our number one priority.' In January 2007, Joanna went to a solicitor after Brown accused her of having an affair. Eventually, the couple split and Joanna was encouraged by the outcome Radmacher v Granatino case, which saw prenups being seen as enforceable in the UK. Her parents had encouraged her to sign a prenup with Brown. However, Joanna was killed by Brown on October 31, 2010. Brown phoned the police about a 'serious domestic incident' and was arrested on suspicion of being involved in Joanna's death. He accompanied police when they recovered Joanna's body from the woodland area in Windsor Great Park. Brown was diagnosed by the defence psychiatrist as having an adjustment disorder, which involves a 'maladaptive response' to a stressor. He was eventually found guilty of manslaughter, but not guilty of murder. The killer became eligible for parole halfway through his sentence but was met with a widespread campaign against his release.
The National
7 hours ago
- The National
Alex Salmond's widow suing Scottish Government
Moira Salmond, 88, has appointed a team of lawyers to restart Salmond's case against the government he once led. At the time of his death, Salmond was pursuing legal action through the Court of Session and Police Scotland following his acquittal of charges of sexual assault at the High Court in Edinburgh in 2020. The action related to a flawed Scottish Government investigation into the complaints levelled against him. READ MORE: Rachel Reeves failed to raise Grangemouth with refinery owner days before closure In the August prior to his heart attack in October, Salmond's lawyer Gordon Dangerfield told the Court of Session that Salmond was seeking "significant damages" and compensation for loss of earnings that could stretch into the millions. Moira's determination to proceed is said to be driven by comments made in Nicola Sturgeon's memoir, Frankly. Moira previously released a rare public statement following an interview in which Sturgeon discussed Salmond's behaviour.
Daily Mirror
11 hours ago
- Daily Mirror
Wetherspoons boss takes on pub giant after being sacked
Peter Castagna-Davies had worked at JD Wetherspoon for 22 years but was unfairly dismissed from his role after authorisation a 50% discount on food for a kitchen worker A former JD Wetherspoon pub manager who was sacked for allowing a colleague a 50% food discount has won an employment tribunal, with a judge ruling he was unfairly dismissed. Peter Castagna-Davies had worked at the company for 22 years and had been shift leader at the Pontlottyn pub in Abertillery, Wales when he was sacked for allegedly breaching company policy. The pub boss gave kitchen worker Noah Gardiner the half-price discount as he put the items - two portions of halloumi fries, two portions of chicken breast bites, and two cans of Monster energy drink – through the till. With the company "cracking down" on discounts offered to staff at the time, an internal investigation found he had breached policy by allowing Mr Gardiner to buy "excessive products" at the 50% rate and to take the food home, reports Walesonline. The Cardiff employment tribunal heard that just minutes before Mr Castagna-Davies authorised the order on January 31 last year, Mr Gardiner had used a different manager's till key to process another free meal for himself – chicken breast bites and a can of Monster Punch. Wetherspoon's disciplinary chairman Chris Jenkins decided to fire Mr Castagna-Davies, telling him: "Shortly before you processed Noah's 50% on-shift discount he had processed through the till his own staff feeding meal, some two hours after his break when he had consumed it, which you had no knowledge of him doing so or even going on his break. "I find this both worrying and surprising that, as the duty manager with so few staff to manage on the shift in question, you had no knowledge or control over what was going on." At the time the chain had internally circulated rules stating only one item from the food menu and one soft drink were available for free to employees on a shift. Extra items could be purchased with a discount of 50%, while food being taken home would get a discount of 20%. Wetherspoon's witnesses said during the tribunal that there had been "a crackdown on the 50% discount because staff had been caught taking food home to feed their whole family". They claimed the business had suffered "significant" costs, which led it to adopt a "corporate zero-tolerance attitude towards abuse of the staff discount". The transaction approved by Mr Castagna-Davies was flagged by Wetherspoon's IntelliQ system, which is used to flag potential staff fraud. Pontlottyn manager Sarah Newton had told the shift leader "mistakes happen" but that he should be careful because the company "really were cracking down on it". Mr Castagna-Davies responded that he was disappointed in himself for the mistake. An investigating manager, Keri Blanchard, interviewed Mr Gardiner, who said he had cooked the food himself. Asked if he had eaten his initial free meal on-site, he replied: "I should've yeah, I don't take food home any more.' He then admitted he had taken home the items put through by Castagna-Davies. When he was interviewed about the incident, Castagna-Davies admitted he may have mistakenly "pressed the wrong button" in applying a discount of 50% rather than 20%. He denied being aware Mr Gardiner planned to take the food home. Mr Jenkins dismissed the shift leader without notice despite his clean disciplinary record over 22 years. He cited Wetherspoon had been "vigorous" in communicating its zero-tolerance approach. Mr Castagna-Davies argued via four witnesses that Mr Gardiner "had ordered the food in a deceptive way". But Wetherspoon area manager Dannie Stephens upheld the dismissal, telling him he had "failed to lead, manage and organise your shift sufficiently to prevent the breach". At the tribunal Judge Rachel Harfield concluded it was not reasonable for Ms Stephens to conclude this was a case of "gross incompetence or gross negligence, as opposed to being simple negligence that falls within the misconduct category of the respondent's policy". The judge added: "There is no evidence that Dannie Stephens gave any thought to that at all. She seems simply to have operated on the basis that the claimant should have managed the shift better, that if he had done so the breach would not have happened, therefore the claimant should be held responsible for the breach, and it was possible under the policy to dismiss for a single act. "There was no weighing of the actual seriousness of the claimant's actions in their actual context. Dannie Stephens seemed to have viewed the claimant as diligent in other areas. It was one incident on one shift that he could have managed better. He was an employee with long service and a clear disciplinary record. The decision to uphold the dismissal at appeal stage was not within the reasonable range. In my judgement that rendered the whole dismissal unfair." A payout is yet to be decided. Judge Harfield encouraged the parties to attempt a settlement before a remedy hearing takes place.
