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.theguardian.com/politics/2013/oct/15/plebgate-officers-disciplinary-hearing-ipcc-andrew-mitchell

The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Plebgate row: three officers should face disciplinary hearing, says IPCC Plebgate: officers will not face disciplinary hearing despite criticism
(about 1 hour later)
Three police officers should face a disciplinary hearing to examine whether they lied about a meeting with Andrew Mitchell at the height of the Plebgate row in order to discredit him, the police watchdog has said. Three police officers whose "honesty and integrity" have been questioned by the police watchdog will not face disciplinary action over allegations that they lied to try and discredit Andrew Mitchell at the height of the plebgate affair.
But the Independent Police Complaints Commission said it had no powers to direct disciplinary hearings over the affair, which it said raised an issue of honesty and integrity. The officers, all Police Federation representatives, have been accused of misrepresenting what was said at a meeting they held last year with the then chief whip, following his altercation with two Downing Street diplomatic protection officers in which it was alleged he called them "fucking plebs".
The commission said it disagreed with the findings of the officers' own forces that they should not be disciplined for gross misconduct because there had been no intention to lie. But it emerged on Tuesday that an investigation by their own forces into the allegations has found there is no case to answer for misconduct or gross misconduct, because their comments afterwards could at their strongest be seen as "ambiguous or misleading" but not deliberate lies.
In a statement released after the IPCC published its findings, Mitchell said: "It is a matter of deep concern that the police forces employing these officers have concluded that their conduct has not brought the police service into disrepute. Most people will disagree. The IPCC has said it disagrees with the findings, and called on Tuesday for all three officers to face misconduct panels, saying the evidence indicates "an issue of honesty and integrity".
But the IPCC - which allowed the three police forces to investigate their own officers - has no power in this case to force a disciplinary hearing as they only supervised the inquiry.
Responding to the decision, Mitchell, who has been waiting more than a year for the outcome of investigations into police officers over allegations that they leaked information and conspired against him, said: "It is a matter of deep concern that the police forces employing these officers have concluded that their conduct has not brought the police service into disrepute. Most people will disagree.
"It is a decision which will undermine confidence in the ability of the police to investigate misconduct when the reputation of the police service as a whole is at stake."It is a decision which will undermine confidence in the ability of the police to investigate misconduct when the reputation of the police service as a whole is at stake.
"My family and I have waited nearly a year for these police officers to be held to account and for an apology from the police forces involved. It seems we have waited in vain.""My family and I have waited nearly a year for these police officers to be held to account and for an apology from the police forces involved. It seems we have waited in vain."
Deborah Glass, deputy chair of the IPCC, said: "In my view the evidence is such that a panel should determine whether the three officers gave a false account of the meeting in a deliberate attempt to support their MPS (Metropolitan police service) colleague and discredit Mr Mitchell, in pursuit of a wider agenda. The officers, who were federation representatives from the West Mercia, West Midlands and Warwickshire forces, held a meeting with Mitchell last year in the aftermath of the Plebgate row
"In my opinion the evidence indicates an issue of honesty and integrity, not merely naive or poor professional judgment." All three were at the forefront of the federation's anti cuts campaign at the time.
Glass said she did not believe the officers - Police Federation representatives from the West Midlands, West Mercia and the Warwickshire forces – could have been in any doubt about how their statements would have increased the pressure on Mitchell, as he considered his political future in the aftermath of an altercation with two Downing Street diplomatic protection officers. After the meeting, Ken Mackaill, chairman of the West Mercia federation, said Mitchell's position was untenable. He resigned a week later.
The three officers met Mitchell in a private meeting at his Sutton Coldfield constituency offices following the Downing Street incident. But it was later alleged that they lied about what went on in the meeting - which had been taped - in order to support their colleagues in London. They were accused of deliberately misrepresenting the meeting and calling Mitchell's integrity into question.
Unbeknown to them it was taped by Mitchell, and the officers' accounts of what was said were at odds with his. Deborah Glass, the IPCC deputy chair, said on Tuesday the officers should face disciplinary panels to decide whether they lied.
The officers who were at the forefront of the Police Federation's anti-cuts agenda are accused of deliberately misrepresenting what was said to further their own aims. "In my view the evidence is such that a panel should determine whether the three officers gave a false account of the meeting in a deliberate attempt to support their MPS (Metropolitan police service) colleague and discredit Mr Mitchell, in pursuit of a wider agenda.
But the investigation into the affair by their own forces concluded that they should not face gross misconduct panels because "there was no deliberate intention to lie". "In my opinion the evidence indicates an issue of honesty and integrity, not merely naive or poor professional judgment," she said.
Glass said she wanted the public to know that the IPCC disagreed. Glass said she did not believe the officers could have been in any doubt about how their statements would have increased the pressure on Mitchell.
"Their motive seems plain: they were running a successful, high-profile, anti-cuts campaign and the account he provided to them did not fit with their agenda." "As police officers they had a responsibility to present a fair and accurate picture. Their motive seems plain: they were running a successful, high-profile, anti-cuts campaign and the account that he provided to them did not fit with their agenda," she said. Glass said the IPCC did not have the power to direct their forces to carry out disciplinary action because Mitchell had not made a formal complaint.
But she said the IPCC had no powers to force a disciplinary hearing because they had receieved no formal complaint from Mitchell. But had the IPCC decided to take on the inquiry as an independent investigation they would have been able to force a misconduct panel to take place.
A statement from Warwickshire, West Mercia and West Midlands police said: "Despite a thorough investigation under the supervision of the IPCC we do not believe that there is sufficient evidence to support the view that the officers concerned should face misconduct proceedings. In a statement Warwickshire, West Mercia and West Midlands police forces stood by their conclusions. "Despite a thorough investigation under the supervision of the IPCC we do not believe that there is sufficient evidence to support the view that the officers concerned should face misconduct proceedings," the statement said.
"Our view is that the officers have demonstrated poor judgment in arranging and attending the meeting in the first place. In light of this, our position is that management action is a proportionate response.""Our view is that the officers have demonstrated poor judgment in arranging and attending the meeting in the first place. In light of this, our position is that management action is a proportionate response."
The three forces added that had the IPCC decided to treat the investigation as a managed or an independent investigation, they would have the power to direct the forces to convene misconduct proceedings but have chosen not to exercise these powers.The three forces added that had the IPCC decided to treat the investigation as a managed or an independent investigation, they would have the power to direct the forces to convene misconduct proceedings but have chosen not to exercise these powers.
After the meeting in October last year the federation members said the Mitchell had no choice but to resign.
They said the then chief whip had repeated a "profound apology with feeling" about the incident in Downing Street but had continued to deny using the word pleb, which had been attributed to him.
Mitchell has admitted swearing during the incident but not using the word pleb.
But a tape of the meeting contradicted the account by the three police federation representatives and an investigation into whether they had provided false accounts of what was said was carried out by their forces, supervised by the IPCC.
The Crown Prosecution service is considering a file of evidence from the Metropolitan police's investigation into the incident, the leaking of information to the media and misconduct issues in relation to the altercation.The Crown Prosecution service is considering a file of evidence from the Metropolitan police's investigation into the incident, the leaking of information to the media and misconduct issues in relation to the altercation.
Mitchell was forced to resign as chief whip last year after officers said he called them "fucking plebs" after they refused to allow him to wheel his bike through a Downing Street entrance on 19 September 2012.
CCTV later emerged that raised questions about police accounts of the incident, and appeared to back Mitchell, who has always denied calling the police plebs.
Keir Starmer, the director of public prosecutions, said at the weekend prosecutors would come to a decision on whether any officers or members of the public should be charged "as soon as we can".Keir Starmer, the director of public prosecutions, said at the weekend prosecutors would come to a decision on whether any officers or members of the public should be charged "as soon as we can".
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.