Police chief did not ‘engage in campaign of dishonesty’, misconduct panel told
Nick Adderley’s barrister said the suspended chief constable had not ‘deliberately set out to deceive’.
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.A suspended chief constable who is accused of lying about his naval service is of good character and did not “engage in a campaign of dishonesty”, his barrister has said.
Nick Adderley, of Northamptonshire Police, did not “deliberately set out to deceive”, Matthew Holdcroft told the senior officer’s misconduct hearing on Thursday in Mr Adderley’s absence.
He has been accused by John Beggs KC, representing the Office of the Northamptonshire Police, Fire and Crime Commissioner, of “a long-term, sustained, mendacious deceit”, including that he exaggerated his rank, length of service and naval achievements, including implying that he served in the Falklands War, despite being 15 when the conflict broke out in 1982.
When you look at the evidence, it doesn’t suggest a fleet-of-foot chief constable adjusting dates in his head, but does suggest somebody who was sloppy, who didn’t pay proper attention and didn’t do the proper research he accepts he should have done
The hearing was previously told Mr Adderley had lied on his CV and application form when applying for the Northamptonshire job by claiming he served in the Royal Navy for 10 years when he had served for only two, had attended the prestigious Britannia Royal Naval College, despite his application being rejected, and that he had been a military negotiator in Haiti, when he had never been to the country.
He was also accused of failing to correct inaccurate newspaper articles about his naval career.
Mr Holdcroft said an allegation of dishonesty against Mr Adderley would be “career ending” but that the evidence put forward by Mr Beggs was “lacking”.
He said: “There is no evidence that any information in those media articles came from Mr Adderley.
“If Mr Adderley were setting out to deliberately deceive, surely he would take the sort of care that Mr Beggs suggests he did when preparing that deceit.
“No careful liar would be setting themselves up to fail as that (CV) would.
“Actually, when you look at the evidence, it doesn’t suggest a fleet-of-foot chief constable adjusting dates in his head, but does suggest somebody who was sloppy, who didn’t pay proper attention and didn’t do the proper research he accepts he should have done.”
Mr Beggs said the accusations against Mr Adderley were not “one or two fleeting lies, but sustained mendacity over a lengthy period and for personal aggrandisement”.
Addressing Callum Cowx, the legally qualified chair of the panel who was previously accused by Mr Holdcroft of holding bias against Mr Adderley, Mr Beggs said: “If the facts fall substantially the way the authority invites, it is plainly gross misconduct.
We suggest, not with any glee, that a fair and calm analysis of the evidence, joining the dots, leads this panel to what is undoubtedly a very unhappy conclusion - that this now chief constable has deliberately and sustainedly advanced a false narrative or legend about his naval career
“At a number of junctures over a number of months, you have been personally attacked as being biased. The appropriate authority rejects that.
“There is another insidious reason for those attacks – to cowe you, to intimidate you.
“It falls to me to say that you rejected those attacks with proper reasons, so please do not be distracted from the evidence.
“We suggest, not with any glee, that a fair and calm analysis of the evidence, joining the dots, leads this panel to what is undoubtedly a very unhappy conclusion – that this now chief constable has deliberately and sustainedly advanced a false narrative or legend about his naval career.”
The panel has retired to consider its position and the hearing continues on Friday.