Sir Norman must be presumed innocent until proven guilty

SIR Norman Bettison has served West Yorkshire with distinction since his appointment as Chief Constable. Until the recent furore, he has been held in great respect by the whole of the force and, by many, still is.

Allegations (and they are at present no more than allegations) have surfaced, some of them 23 years after the event, that:

(a) He made inappropriate remarks after the Hillsborough tragedy to the effect that the Liverpool fans were not entirely blameless for what happened;

(b) He caused officers under his command to edit their witness statements, removing criticisms of the police, and;

(c) Recently he has tried to influence the decision as to whether his conduct should be referred to the IPCC.

The way in which the Press has reported these events has, in my opinion, lacked balance.

As to (a), my understanding is that an officer on horseback at the main gate caused it to be opened because fans were pushing to get in. Once inside, the pressure brought to bear by some of those fans on those on the edge of the playing surface, who were trapped by the fencing, was a contributory factor to their deaths.

Obviously, there were many others but can Sir Norman be condemned for saying what he did? It was insensitive and unfortunate but was it any more than that?

As to (b), no information has been released as to how Sir Norman is said to have influenced the editing of officer’s witness statements. Is the instruction said to have been oral or telephonic or written? Was it recorded? Was any reason given for the instruction? Was it to take out a factual account or simply an opinion as to whether the police were to blame? If the latter, a witness statement’s principal purpose is to give a factual account. Did any officer complain at the time that the effect of his witness statement was being distorted?

As to (c), surely a decision has already been made to refer the matter to the IPCC? Sir Norman probably wishes his name to be cleared and would welcome an inquiry. We simply do not as yet know.

Of course the allegations, if proved, could amount to a criminal offence. The most likely would be “misconduct in public office”.

However, the coverage seems to assume he is guilty before any inquiry or trial has taken place. Whether or not a fair trial will now be possible, in the light of such biased publicity, remains to be seen.

The passage of time since most of the events, plus the adverse publicity, may result in an application at any trial to stay the trial as an abuse of process on the grounds that a fair trial is no longer possible.

I do not know the truth of the situation any more than anyone else. However, it does strike me that the coverage thus far has lacked balance.

I always thought that, in this country, a man was presumed innocent until proven guilty.