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/23/plebgate-officers-refuse-apologise-mitchell

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Plebgate officers refuse to apologise to Andrew Mitchell New code of police ethics follows Plebgate
(about 1 hour later)
A tough new code of ethics for the police service will be heralded by the home secretary after three officers at the centre of allegations that they lied to discredit Andrew Mitchell refused repeatedly to apologise to him during an interrogation by MPs.A tough new code of ethics for the police service will be heralded by the home secretary after three officers at the centre of allegations that they lied to discredit Andrew Mitchell refused repeatedly to apologise to him during an interrogation by MPs.
Alex Marshall, the chief executive of the College of Policing, will publish the code – equivalent to a Hippocratic oath for police officers – on Thursday and Theresa May is to mark the event with a speech.Alex Marshall, the chief executive of the College of Policing, will publish the code – equivalent to a Hippocratic oath for police officers – on Thursday and Theresa May is to mark the event with a speech.
The much awaited code is designed to force national standards of honesty and integrity on police officers. It is being published as the reputation of the service was put under the spotlight by the Commons home affairs select committee.The much awaited code is designed to force national standards of honesty and integrity on police officers. It is being published as the reputation of the service was put under the spotlight by the Commons home affairs select committee.
The three police officers – all police federation representatives from the West Midlands, West Mercia and Warwickshire forces – face possible new disciplinary action as revelations emerged about how the original police investigation into their conduct was watered down.The three police officers – all police federation representatives from the West Midlands, West Mercia and Warwickshire forces – face possible new disciplinary action as revelations emerged about how the original police investigation into their conduct was watered down.
The chief constable of West Mercia, David Shaw, said he had written a personal, profound apology to Mitchell and was handing the investigation into the officers' conduct to another chief constable to review the findings. But the process may take months and is open to legal challenge, leaving the former cabinet minister, who had resigned over the affair, in limbo again.The chief constable of West Mercia, David Shaw, said he had written a personal, profound apology to Mitchell and was handing the investigation into the officers' conduct to another chief constable to review the findings. But the process may take months and is open to legal challenge, leaving the former cabinet minister, who had resigned over the affair, in limbo again.
In a tense and difficult interrogation, Inspector Ken Mackaill, Detective Sergeant Stuart Hinton and Sergeant Chris Jones – the trio accused by the police watchdog of giving false accounts as part of a political campaign to discredit Mitchell – defended their actions throughout.In a tense and difficult interrogation, Inspector Ken Mackaill, Detective Sergeant Stuart Hinton and Sergeant Chris Jones – the trio accused by the police watchdog of giving false accounts as part of a political campaign to discredit Mitchell – defended their actions throughout.
They repeatedly denied that they had done anything wrong following a 45-minute meeting with Mitchell a year ago. The meeting was called ostensibly to clear the air after revelations about an altercation Mitchell had had with Metropolitan police officers in Downing Street, when he was the government's chief whip. Mitchell admitted that he had sworn.They repeatedly denied that they had done anything wrong following a 45-minute meeting with Mitchell a year ago. The meeting was called ostensibly to clear the air after revelations about an altercation Mitchell had had with Metropolitan police officers in Downing Street, when he was the government's chief whip. Mitchell admitted that he had sworn.
A leaked log of the incident alleged that he had called them "fucking plebs", something he has always denied.A leaked log of the incident alleged that he had called them "fucking plebs", something he has always denied.
After the meeting – in which Mitchell continued to deny saying pleb – the three emerged to say he should consider his position because he had failed to give a full account of the altercation in Downing Street. But a transcript of the meeting later emerged to discredit their version of events. Asked four times by MPs on Wednesday if they wanted to apologise for misrepresenting what he said to them at the meeting, the trio refused.After the meeting – in which Mitchell continued to deny saying pleb – the three emerged to say he should consider his position because he had failed to give a full account of the altercation in Downing Street. But a transcript of the meeting later emerged to discredit their version of events. Asked four times by MPs on Wednesday if they wanted to apologise for misrepresenting what he said to them at the meeting, the trio refused.
Mark Ellis, a Tory MP, accused them of a deliberate conspiracy to deseat Mitchell as part of their anti-cuts campaign, which was at its height at the time.Mark Ellis, a Tory MP, accused them of a deliberate conspiracy to deseat Mitchell as part of their anti-cuts campaign, which was at its height at the time.
"You acted in concert to discredit a senior cabinet minister?" he said. "I absolutely refute that," said Mackaill."You acted in concert to discredit a senior cabinet minister?" he said. "I absolutely refute that," said Mackaill.
Hinton, under pressure from MPs, accepted they had made public comments too soon after emerging from the meeting. He also said: "I regret using the incident in Downing Street as a hook for the campaign."Hinton, under pressure from MPs, accepted they had made public comments too soon after emerging from the meeting. He also said: "I regret using the incident in Downing Street as a hook for the campaign."
Asked if they accepted that their comments after the meeting misrepresented what Mitchell said, they all denied doing so. Jones said: "I am not convinced that we have done anything wrong."Asked if they accepted that their comments after the meeting misrepresented what Mitchell said, they all denied doing so. Jones said: "I am not convinced that we have done anything wrong."
A few hours before the police officers gave evidence David Cameron said they all owed Mitchell an apology. The prime minister told MPs: "[Andrew Mitchell] gave a full explanation of what happened. The police in the meeting said that he gave no explanation. It is now clear, reading the Independent Police Complaints Commission report, that the police need to make an apology. The officers concerned and the chief constables are coming to the House today. I hope they will give a full account and a proper apology to the home affairs committee. It is a moment for all [MPs] to consider what we said at the time. I hope [Ed Miliband] does the same."A few hours before the police officers gave evidence David Cameron said they all owed Mitchell an apology. The prime minister told MPs: "[Andrew Mitchell] gave a full explanation of what happened. The police in the meeting said that he gave no explanation. It is now clear, reading the Independent Police Complaints Commission report, that the police need to make an apology. The officers concerned and the chief constables are coming to the House today. I hope they will give a full account and a proper apology to the home affairs committee. It is a moment for all [MPs] to consider what we said at the time. I hope [Ed Miliband] does the same."
Three chief constables, the two most senior members of the Independent Police Complaints Commission and the three Police Federation representatives were questioned intensely about the year-long fall out from the incident in Downing Street by MPs.Three chief constables, the two most senior members of the Independent Police Complaints Commission and the three Police Federation representatives were questioned intensely about the year-long fall out from the incident in Downing Street by MPs.
At one point Keith Vaz, the chair, told the chief constable of West Mercia: "This is a car crash."At one point Keith Vaz, the chair, told the chief constable of West Mercia: "This is a car crash."
Details of how the police investigation carried out by a senior officer from West Mercia police was apparently watered down emerged at the hearing.Details of how the police investigation carried out by a senior officer from West Mercia police was apparently watered down emerged at the hearing.
Chief Inspector Jerry Reakes-Williams, head of professional standards at West Mercia and Warwickshire, told MPs he had concluded that all three officers should face misconduct proceedings.Chief Inspector Jerry Reakes-Williams, head of professional standards at West Mercia and Warwickshire, told MPs he had concluded that all three officers should face misconduct proceedings.
He gave seven reasons for his conclusion. "The officers gave an account that was inaccurate and misleading," he said in his conclusions. But he decided against recommending gross misconduct proceedings – which could lead to their sacking – because he said the evidence did not show they had deliberately lied.He gave seven reasons for his conclusion. "The officers gave an account that was inaccurate and misleading," he said in his conclusions. But he decided against recommending gross misconduct proceedings – which could lead to their sacking – because he said the evidence did not show they had deliberately lied.
He said it was a question of language and interpretation and there was room to argue that Mitchell had not made a completely full account of the Downing Street altercation – as the three officers had claimed.He said it was a question of language and interpretation and there was room to argue that Mitchell had not made a completely full account of the Downing Street altercation – as the three officers had claimed.
He said there was still doubt about what Mitchell had said during the Downing Street altercation.He said there was still doubt about what Mitchell had said during the Downing Street altercation.
But Reakes-Williams told MPs his conclusions that misconduct hearings were necessary were overruled after a meeting in August with three deputy chiefs from the three forces – which was not minuted.But Reakes-Williams told MPs his conclusions that misconduct hearings were necessary were overruled after a meeting in August with three deputy chiefs from the three forces – which was not minuted.
He said he made his views "absolutely clear" to more senior officers but in the end accepted their decision that they three should not be disciplined at all.He said he made his views "absolutely clear" to more senior officers but in the end accepted their decision that they three should not be disciplined at all.
Asked by Mps whether he felt Mitchell was owed an apology, he said: "Certainly I do."Asked by Mps whether he felt Mitchell was owed an apology, he said: "Certainly I do."
Deborah Glass, the deputy chair of the IPCC, giving evidence, said she was "absolutely astonished" when she saw that the final report by West Mercia police had concluded there was no case to answer for the three officers. "I couldn't understand how the conclusions had been reached...the evidence and the conclusions were so at odds I needed to put it on public record," she said.Deborah Glass, the deputy chair of the IPCC, giving evidence, said she was "absolutely astonished" when she saw that the final report by West Mercia police had concluded there was no case to answer for the three officers. "I couldn't understand how the conclusions had been reached...the evidence and the conclusions were so at odds I needed to put it on public record," she said.
She believed - and still believes – the officers should face "gross misconduct" hearings. Asked if she thought the police officers lied, she said: "The evidence should have been considered by a (gross misconduct) panel."She believed - and still believes – the officers should face "gross misconduct" hearings. Asked if she thought the police officers lied, she said: "The evidence should have been considered by a (gross misconduct) panel."
Shaw told MPs he had the power to decide to discipline his own officer himself – as have the other two chief constables involved -but had decided to refer the investigation and Reakes-Williams findings to Her Majestys Inspectorate of Constabulary to be referred to another chief constable to review.Shaw told MPs he had the power to decide to discipline his own officer himself – as have the other two chief constables involved -but had decided to refer the investigation and Reakes-Williams findings to Her Majestys Inspectorate of Constabulary to be referred to another chief constable to review.
But he admitted this could take months, and was open to a judicial review challenge.But he admitted this could take months, and was open to a judicial review challenge.
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.