This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/mar/28/norman-bettison-hillsborough-report-ipcc

The article has changed 8 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 3 Version 4
Norman Bettison 'has case to answer' over Hillsborough report response Norman Bettison 'has case to answer' over Hillsborough report response
(about 1 month later)
Sir Norman Bettison, the former chief constable of West Yorkshire police, has a case to answer for gross misconduct for trying to influence public opinion over the Hillsborough Independent Panel report, the police watchdog has said.Sir Norman Bettison, the former chief constable of West Yorkshire police, has a case to answer for gross misconduct for trying to influence public opinion over the Hillsborough Independent Panel report, the police watchdog has said.
But Bettison, who left the police in the aftermath of the damning Hillsborough report last year, cannot be disciplined or dismissed because he is no longer a serving officer. The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) found in a report published on Thursday that he had a case to answer for "discreditable conduct and abuse of authority", breaches which would justify dismissal.But Bettison, who left the police in the aftermath of the damning Hillsborough report last year, cannot be disciplined or dismissed because he is no longer a serving officer. The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) found in a report published on Thursday that he had a case to answer for "discreditable conduct and abuse of authority", breaches which would justify dismissal.
Solicitors for Bettison questioned the fairness of the IPCC investigation and said he had himself wished to be investigated by the watchdog.Solicitors for Bettison questioned the fairness of the IPCC investigation and said he had himself wished to be investigated by the watchdog.
The IPCC concluded that Bettison had attempted to influence his police authority when it was considering referring him to the police watchdog over his alleged part in a "black propaganda" campaign in the aftermath of the football stadium disaster that killed 96 people.The IPCC concluded that Bettison had attempted to influence his police authority when it was considering referring him to the police watchdog over his alleged part in a "black propaganda" campaign in the aftermath of the football stadium disaster that killed 96 people.
The report indicates Bettison wanted to make himself look good by taking control of the process. "At issue was his professed desire that he refer himself to the IPCC," it says, "whether it was appropriate for him to try to do this and how he attempted to make it happen."The report indicates Bettison wanted to make himself look good by taking control of the process. "At issue was his professed desire that he refer himself to the IPCC," it says, "whether it was appropriate for him to try to do this and how he attempted to make it happen."
Bettison, the IPCC found, did not attempt to stop the referral happening, but the contact he made with Fraser Sampson, the chief executive of West Yorkshire police authority, and Mark Burns-Williamson, its chair, were attempts to influence and manipulate their decision.Bettison, the IPCC found, did not attempt to stop the referral happening, but the contact he made with Fraser Sampson, the chief executive of West Yorkshire police authority, and Mark Burns-Williamson, its chair, were attempts to influence and manipulate their decision.
The report says Bettison's account of what happened contrasted with that of the chief executive of the authority.The report says Bettison's account of what happened contrasted with that of the chief executive of the authority.
"By his own account Sir Norman was anxious for the complaints against him to be referred to the IPCC, but the evidence demonstrates that he wanted to control the process," the IPCC says."By his own account Sir Norman was anxious for the complaints against him to be referred to the IPCC, but the evidence demonstrates that he wanted to control the process," the IPCC says.
"Given the content of the Hillsborough Independent Panel's report which implied that he may have been involved in manipulating the facts and supplying misinformation to the media, parliament and the public following the Hillsborough disaster, the evidence suggesting that he has attempted to manipulate public messages can only be damaging to his reputation. It is concerning that his first thoughts appear to have been to protect his own position.""Given the content of the Hillsborough Independent Panel's report which implied that he may have been involved in manipulating the facts and supplying misinformation to the media, parliament and the public following the Hillsborough disaster, the evidence suggesting that he has attempted to manipulate public messages can only be damaging to his reputation. It is concerning that his first thoughts appear to have been to protect his own position."
Bettison – who retired last October – was, when the report came out, the most senior serving officer to have been involved in the Hillsborough disaster. He is still the subject of a more substantial IPCC investigation into allegations that he played a role in a propaganda campaign in the aftermath of the disaster that involved South Yorkshire police – the force at the centre of the Hillsborough disaster cover-up – attempting to smear the fans and to put itself in a positive light. Bettison was a chief inspector with South Yorkshire police at the time of the 1989 disaster.Bettison – who retired last October – was, when the report came out, the most senior serving officer to have been involved in the Hillsborough disaster. He is still the subject of a more substantial IPCC investigation into allegations that he played a role in a propaganda campaign in the aftermath of the disaster that involved South Yorkshire police – the force at the centre of the Hillsborough disaster cover-up – attempting to smear the fans and to put itself in a positive light. Bettison was a chief inspector with South Yorkshire police at the time of the 1989 disaster.
The IPCC published its findings on Bettison because he will not face a disciplinary hearing as he is no longer serving. The watchdog said it had published to let "the public judge".The IPCC published its findings on Bettison because he will not face a disciplinary hearing as he is no longer serving. The watchdog said it had published to let "the public judge".
IPCC deputy chair Deborah Glass, said: "His attempts to manipulate and manage the perception of the referral of complaints about him, for his own self-interest, is particularly concerning. It is also conduct that falls far short of what should be expected of a chief constable.IPCC deputy chair Deborah Glass, said: "His attempts to manipulate and manage the perception of the referral of complaints about him, for his own self-interest, is particularly concerning. It is also conduct that falls far short of what should be expected of a chief constable.
"It was the IPCC's view at the start of the investigation, as it was the view of his police authority, that Sir Norman's actions, if proven, fell so far short of what is expected of a chief constable that dismissal would be justified. The evidence uncovered during the investigation supports that view."It was the IPCC's view at the start of the investigation, as it was the view of his police authority, that Sir Norman's actions, if proven, fell so far short of what is expected of a chief constable that dismissal would be justified. The evidence uncovered during the investigation supports that view.
"While we cannot bring this case to misconduct proceedings, we can publish the evidence so that the public can judge for themselves."While we cannot bring this case to misconduct proceedings, we can publish the evidence so that the public can judge for themselves.
"This case should also serve as a salutary reminder to chief officers everywhere of how much public confidence is damaged when the conduct of leaders is called into question.""This case should also serve as a salutary reminder to chief officers everywhere of how much public confidence is damaged when the conduct of leaders is called into question."
Bettison's solicitor John Harding said: "The IPCC has recognised that my client, Sir Norman Bettison, did himself wish to be investigated by the IPCC in connection with allegations made in respect of Hillsborough.Bettison's solicitor John Harding said: "The IPCC has recognised that my client, Sir Norman Bettison, did himself wish to be investigated by the IPCC in connection with allegations made in respect of Hillsborough.
"He remains keen to see that the investigation into the substantive matters is progressed as quickly as possible."He remains keen to see that the investigation into the substantive matters is progressed as quickly as possible.
"The IPCC has decided that it considers my client acted improperly in seeking approval from the police authority to refer himself to the IPCC."The IPCC has decided that it considers my client acted improperly in seeking approval from the police authority to refer himself to the IPCC.
"The decision that there is a case to answer is not a finding of guilt. This point is accepted, explicitly, in the foreword of the IPCC report and it therefore sits, uncomfortably, with some of the comments in the investigator's report, made after an incomplete investigation."The decision that there is a case to answer is not a finding of guilt. This point is accepted, explicitly, in the foreword of the IPCC report and it therefore sits, uncomfortably, with some of the comments in the investigator's report, made after an incomplete investigation.
"Sir Norman voluntarily attended interview, provided a written statement and invited the IPCC to interview witnesses."Sir Norman voluntarily attended interview, provided a written statement and invited the IPCC to interview witnesses.
"Since there can be no formal misconduct hearing, my client is denied the opportunity to call those witnesses, which the IPCC declined to interview, and is denied the opportunity to put his case and challenge other evidence, which calls into question the fairness of such a process.""Since there can be no formal misconduct hearing, my client is denied the opportunity to call those witnesses, which the IPCC declined to interview, and is denied the opportunity to put his case and challenge other evidence, which calls into question the fairness of such a process."
guardian.co.uk today is our daily snapshot of the top news stories, sent to your inbox at 8am Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning. Enter your email address to subscribe.