WIREDGOV

The lack of a comprehensive audit trail and poor recollection from former police officers means it is not possible for the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) to establish why a report on a man who subsequently appeared at a Macpherson Inquiry hearing was compiled or who ordered the background enquiries to be undertaken.

However, the IPCC found no evidence that the report was used to undermine the credibility of the witness when he later appeared as a witness at a Macpherson Inquiry hearing in Bradford in 1998.

An independent IPCC investigation examined why West Yorkshire Police’s special branch compiled an intelligence report. The IPCC also looked at who was responsible, how the report was used, if it affected the inquiry proceedings, whether ethnicity had been a factor, and whether the information was used by the force in an unrelated civil action in 2001.

IPCC Commissioner Cindy Butts said: “This intelligence report was compiled in the run-up to an inquiry of significant national interest. The lack of available documentary evidence and clear recollections from former officers has been problematic for the investigation. It means there is no clear explanation as to why it was ordered or who requested it. There is no evidence of the report being used to undermine the witness’s credibility at the Macpherson Inquiry.”

The investigation discovered that the catalyst for the report was most likely to have been a comment made by Sir Norman Bettison, who was an Assistant Chief Constable at the force in 1998 and resigned from his role as Chief Constable in 2012. When the man’s name was mentioned during a briefing that included reference to the Macpherson Inquiry being held in Bradford, Sir Norman asked “what’s he up to these days?”

Sir Norman was interviewed under criminal caution by the IPCC but denied ordering the report. He suggested that a subordinate officer could have compiled it in order to impress him after hearing the comment he made at the briefing.

 None of the special branch officers involved could recall who had requested the report. It was stated that compiling reports on individuals or groups was standard work for the unit. The IPCC found that the enquiries conducted by officers from West Yorkshire Police’s special branch unit did not breach any national police policies or procedures that were applicable at the time.

According to documentation, Sir Norman requested that two individuals be briefed on the contents of the report and that it be forwarded to another officer, all three police officers subsequently appeared at the inquiry. None recalled seeing it and a transcript showed they did not refer to the individual during the Macpherson Inquiry proceedings. Sir Norman told the IPCC he asked for it to be shared with the officers as it concerned someone working in the areas they policed. The fact that all three were due to appear at the Macpherson Inquiry was a coincidence, he said.

 Ms Butts added: “West Yorkshire Police did not breach the national policies and procedures applicable at the time. However, the fact that it has proved impossible to determine the purpose behind the intelligence report will no doubt leave the individual who was the subject of this intelligence report with a number of unanswered questions. This is regrettable.”

The investigation report has been published on the IPCC website.