Hillsborough Special

Volume 1, Issue 1

unProfessional Standards Department

South Yorkshire Police

Can Chief Constable Crompton be trusted with Hillsborough criminal enquiries?

HFSGs Trevor Hicks Tireless and fearless campaigner

I am Chief Constable and I do what I want to do

unProfessional Standards Department is committed to exposing corruption in the police service. Until now it has confined its activities to its own locality in West Yorkshire, seat of the now disgraced (Sir) Norman Bettison. David Crompton left West Yorkshire Police in March 2012 to become Chief Constable of South Yorkshire, almost by default. There was a dearth of other serving ACPO officers wanting to drink from the poisoned chalice, even after two rounds of advertising. Crompton had joined West Yorkshire as an Assistant Chief Constable in 2004 and became Bettisons Deputy four years later. In a hard-hitting special edition, uPSD look at Cromptons past and present involvement with corruption and set the question: Will the Home Affairs Select Committee give him the grilling that is warranted and challenge his credentials to be in charge of any police force, let alone one that is already proven to be rotten to its roots. Crompton is to update the Committee on his Forces actions following the publication of the Hillsborough Independent Panel Report, and in particular, the referrals concerning the misconduct and criminality of serving and former officers to the IPCC. The hearing is scheduled for 16th October.
Forces own Black Propaganda specialist and an officer facing other serious challenges to his integrity from former police colleagues in a forthcoming civil trial. Parkinson also faces a public complaint inquiry by a DCC (or Chief Constable) from another Force after an attempt to halt investigations into an inappropriate and falsely founded email was rebuffed by the IPCC. So, setting aside DCC John Parkinson Facing external joint enterprise investigation allegations or corporate Command Team culpability for a West Yorkshire Police Professional Standards Department that has been thoroughly exposed as rotten to the core, we look at how Crompton is linked directly to other key events during his tenure in Wakefield HQ. Just over a year ago Lord Simon Brown QC, a Supreme Court judge, found West Yorkshire Police to have taken part in a shocking and disgraceful conspiracy to pervert the course of justice in the case of

We begin our own investigation into Crompton by shining a light on the fact that, apart from the now discredited and brass-necked Bettison, whose resignation his own Police Authority sought immediately after the publication of the Panels findings, there are now three other former West Yorkshire ACPO colleagues of Cromptons who have either faced or (Sir) Norman Bettison been found guilty of gross misconduct (North Yorkshires Maxwell and Briggs; Cumbrias Hyde). That is no accident of statistics, rather an illuminating commentary on the style of operations run by West Yorkshire in the Bettison/Crompton era. This is best summarised by current Merseyside Police Authority Chairman, Cllr Bill Weightman, speaking about Bettison in the Liverpool Echo: I never liked him. He had a style which was I am Chief Constable and I do what I want to do. It was a constant fight. uPSD has, in ten increasingly mindboggling publications, opened up an entrenched network of police dishonesty, misconduct and criminality that has developed since Crompton joined West Yorkshire eight years ago. There are only two common threads throughout that period: Crompton and his replacement as Hillsborough A 23 year fight for the truth DCC, John Parkinson, now outed as his

PAGE 1 OF 6

unProfessional Standards Department

Paul Maxwell, who murdered an 85-yearold man in a Wakefield suburb in 1996. Maxwell and his brother, Daniel Mansell, were originally found guilty after a trial at Leeds Crown Court in 1998 but the convictions were quashed in 2009 on the grounds they had been procured by gross prosecutorial misconduct. At the time, Patrick OConnor QC said: One of the most striking aspects of the saga is the extent to which so many police officers, and these senior officers, seemed to have behaved with apparent impunity. They seemed to act as if they had no fear that one of their colleagues was going to inform on them and bring their conduct to a halt. They trusted each other implicitly, didnt they? That, uPSD have found, would be a very fair commentary on West Yorkshire Police in October 2012. These Court of Appeal acquittals followed an independent inquiry ordered by the CCRC and conducted by North Yorkshire Police that found Karl Chapman, a key prosecution witness with more than 200 previous convictions, had been allowed to visit brothels, take heroin and cannabis, and have a sexual (Sir) Norman Bettison relationship with a Stripped of every medal? female detective. The investigation, which ran from July 2002 until 2007 and was codenamed Operation Douglas, also found Chapman enjoyed immunity from prosecution for a series of violent crimes, including an assault on the policewoman, after they had split up, and the rape of his cellmate in prison. It was led by DCS Peter McKay, at the time Head of CID at neighbouring North Yorkshire Police. He said some of the officers were not very concerned with procedures. He added: With regards to senior officers, it is clear that there could be more professional auditing, tasking and checking but there wasnt. That culture

South Yorkshire Police

seemed to permeate throughout Another shot aimed directly at Cromptons command team. Asked why criminal prosecutions or disciplinary proceedings were not brought against some officers, Mr McKay said: I completed files for the CPS and I am somewhat surprised none of the police officers were prosecuted. Keith Vaz MP HASC Chair He concluded: We were persona non grata - officers coming in from a foreign force. People were not making themselves available. We were also having problems with the hierarchy of West Yorkshire Police. Present in the Force throughout the Douglas inquiry was the aforementioned DCC, John Parkinson. Crompton was present in that hierarchy from 2004 to its conclusion three years later and he needs to offer a very full explanation to the HASC, in the highly relevant context of Hillsborough, as to why DCS Peter McKays inquiry was thwarted at every turn and no prosecutions of police officers ever resulted. Crompton also needs to explain fully why not one of the officers concerned in this disgraceful and shocking corruption ever faced disciplinary proceedings. This cannot be allowed to be repeated in the case of the Hillsborough cover-up Shortly after the Supreme Court revelations Crompton was quoted: I am absolutely confident, given the structures Patrick OConnor QC we have had in place for some time, that there is no way anything like this would happen now, That was, and still is, a bare-faced lie and Crompton knew full well that he was deliberately misleading the press and public. Cromptons West Yorkshire Police had (and still do not have) no such structures in place. It is uPSDs informed, wellevidenced and absolute assertion that their organisation is a shambles from top to bottom with a Command Team focused on only one thing: Avoiding reputational damage at all costs. Every action taken as a Force has always been subjugated to that singular premise. More importantly, Cromptons statement was also a lie in relation to the contemporaneous criminal tendencies of West Yorkshire Police officers and their ability to conceal evidence, make false statements and cover up bad David Crompton His statement was a lie investigations and misconduct. To the

They trusted each other implicity, didnt they?

PAGE 2 OF 6

South Yorkshire Police

unProfessional Standards Department

extent where a significant series of high profile criminal trials have collapsed and Circuit and High Court Judges are all too regularly critical of the conduct of police officers from that force. examined the evidence, and in particular the 13 hours of CCTV evidence withheld from the Major family at the time of the trial, is left in no doubt whatsoever that Danny could not have committed the assault for which he was convicted. In the intervening years, Cromptons West Yorkshire Police have engaged themselves in a Hillsborough style conspiracy and cover-up. The lengths they are prepared to go to in concealing probative evidence that would assist Dannys CCRC Appeal and refusing to interview officers against whom there is now prima-facie evidence of criminality, is soul-destroying. But like the Hillsborough families and Doreen Lawrence, Eric and Bernadette Major will never give up the fight for justice for their son. Crompton also had a personal role in the dismissal of Danny Major from the police, even before his Court of Appeal trial. At a formal misconduct hearing Dannys Justice for the families entire future as a for the 96 now has to police officer rested be paramount on whether lawyers for the police could successfully argue that Dannys case was exceptional. It was a high hurdle and only this finding would allow his dismissal before trial. In walked Crompton, took the chairmans seat and promptly announced: We are here today to hear this exceptional case At which point Dannys parents got up and walked out. Danny, unsurprisingly found that after a onesided hearing he was dismissed That is another fair measure of the integrity of South Yorkshire Chief Constable, David Crompton, the man in whom the Hillsborough families must place their trust.

Stench of corruption hangs over SYP HQ

A number of those collapsed cases have followed reversals in the cases of criminal trials pursued against BME officers. In an article in the Daily Telegraph, who had received a dossier believed to be leaked from within West Yorkshire Police, it stated that most of the cases in the dossier centred on the forces Professional Standards Department. They included examples of ethnic officers being treated much more harshly than white officers facing identical disciplinary allegations. The dossier also includes allegations of evidence being fabricated against black and Asian officers, claims of bullying and suggestions that the PSD deploys oppressive interviewing tactics when questioning ethnic minority officers about alleged misdemeanours. Cromptons response to those allegations was: The concerns that were brought to my attention have caused me to review each of the cases that feature in the dossier. I have also commissioned a wider analysis of disciplinary outcomes. I am satisfied, at this stage that the force is acting entirely appropriately in each of the investigations. Then why, Mr Crompton, did the trials of BME officers Shakeel Ahmed (twice), Kashif Ahmed, Talib Khan, David Blair, Wasim Bashir and Murtaza Ahmed not produce a single conviction following your review. Three of the trials collapsed as an abuse of process. One can only pray that your review of the Hillsborough misconduct and criminality allegations is of more substance and probative value. Likewise, another significant stain on the reputation of West Yorkshire Police is the nationally known miscarriage of justice involving Danny Major. Danny was a constable in that Force, as was his father before him. Eric Major has just retired after giving 31 years exemplary service. In 2006 PC Danny Major was imprisoned for a crime he did not commit. He was the victim of perjured evidence and a sustained conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. Anyone who has
PAGE 3 OF 6

there is no way anything like this would happen now

David Crompton

Contact us
If you want to get in touch email us at unprofessionalstandards-wyp@yahoo. co.uk You may have a problem or a story about someone you know. watch out for our new Twitter and Facebook pages coming soon. If you require sight of any of our back issues please do not hesitate to contact us.

Charles Perryman SYPA Chairman appointed Crompton

unProfessional Standards Department

South Yorkshire Police

Hillsborough hero Neil Jessop turns villain

Head of Professional Standards dodges key integrity issues
Ninety-six men, women and children died as a result of the Hillsborough Disaster on 15 April 1989. It remains the most serious tragedy in UK sporting history. Thousands more suffered physical injury and/or long-term psychological harm. Twenty-three years on, the Hillsborough Independent Enquiry Panel, having previously negotiated the disclosure of documents from those involved, published an in-depth new material Report. It extends to 12 chapters and 395 pages and is a harrowing, yet utterly compelling read, for those having an interest either in football, policing, politics or the judicial system. That excludes only a small minority of the population both here in this country and further afield.
The inquiry involved the study over 450,000 documents disclosed to the Panel and investigative journalist, Neil Wilby, has read a fair chunk of those as well. His professional interest was around the involvement of (Sir) Norman Bettison as, through many friends and contacts in the police, there was always this recurring notion that Bettison was at the very heart of the team in the post Hillsborough police cover-up. At the time of the tragedy Mr Wilby was running a weekly newspaper group based in nearby Chesterfield. A colleague, who was a keen Notts Forest fan, had watched the drama unfold from the Spion Kop end of the ground. Mr Wilby, a keen sportsman all his life, was also very familiar with the layout at Hillsborough and having seen the drama unfold on TV, it is something that has never left him. Amongst the hundreds of thousands of documents, Mr Wilby turned up a witness account of Neil Thomas Jessop, who was PC 2045 on duty at Hillsborough on the fateful day. It was of particular interest as the two Neils had met twice, professionally, earlier this year. By that time Neil Jessop had risen through the South Yorks ranks to be Head of Professional Standards: He had been promoted to the rank of Detective Chief Superintendent in October 2011. It was a shock for Mr Wilby to find the statement as, during well over four hours of in-depth conversation, when Hillsborough had been raised as a key topic of conversation several times, DCS Jessop never mentioned that he had even been at Hillsborough on that fateful day. That omission is made even more inexplicable by the fact that Mr Wilby had raised the issue of the potential of severe

Officer believed to be Neil Jessop giving resuscitation

reputational damage to South Yorks Police in correspondence with Temporary Chief Constable Bob Dyson. It was that very communication that had prompted the meeting. Neil Jessops statement must be one of the shortest recorded by any officer present at Hillsborough. But it does quite clearly indicate that after being called onto the pitch sometime after 3.06pm he went to the Leppings Lane end and assisted in removing dead T/CC Bob Dyson South Yorks Police bodies from the Neil Jessops pens and also in Witness statement giving first aid to those needing it for some considerable time. For that PC 2045 Jessop will always be a hero, particularly as so many of his colleagues stood about and did nothing. Others even obstructed Liverpool fans trying to save lives. But it is what follows later that casts the first seeds of doubt and troubles the investigators eye. His witness statement, written on plain paper, carries only the barest of detail and is written in a clipped, concise language would not typically be that of a PC of six years standing, who was previously an engineering apprentice: More that of a trained newspaper reporter of twenty years experience. It was minimalism taken to an art form and manages to mention only one other officer throughout and, even then, only in the context of escorting Forest fans back to DCS Jessop Midland Station later that afternoon. That Head of PSD at other officer, PC 3121 Stephanie Hitchborne South Yorks Police

what follows later casts the first seeds of doubt

PAGE 4 OF 6

South Yorkshire Police

unProfessional Standards Department

made a much more complete and detailed statement and in line with what one would have expected in the circumstances. Being part of the same serial it makes the Jessop statement even more puzzling. It did not escape our attention that Stephanies surname was spelt wrongly and her statement was unsigned and carried no date/time. The spelling mistake would imply the statement was not Stephanies own work. The Jessop statement also wasnt timed/ dated and appears to be not in his own handwriting. But the most telling oddity is that his statement plainly notes that he assisted with removal of dead bodies, but DCI Topes of West Midlands Police countermands that and states that he didnt. No rationale is provided for that change. Neither PC Jessop nor WPC Hitchborne were called to give evidence at the Taylor inquiry. Although his interim inquiry report is highly critical of senior policemen, Lord Justice Taylor goes out of his way to commend the heroism of junior officers. He says the courage of young constables inspired confidence and hope. He also says: The quality of their evidence to the inquiry was in inverse proportion to their rank. By contrast, .with some exceptions, the senior officers in command were defensive and evasive witnesses. In the intervening 23 years Neil Jessop has risen from PC to just short of ACPO rank and has now become one of those self-same defensive and evasive senior South Yorkshire Police Lord Taylor of Gosforth officers referred to by the law lord. He has refused to answer specific written enquiries from Neil Wilby, concerning both his knowledge of and part in the Forcewide Hillsborough cover up and why he had deliberately chosen not to even mention the fact that he was there at the material time. DCS Jessop said on his appointment as Head of PSD: I see my role within the police service is to maintain and enhance both Professional Standards and Governance ensuring public confidence and satisfaction in the service they receive. Which, presumably, includes perpetuation of the most shocking and despicable cover up in the history of the police service and deliberately concealing your own role in that. Said Neil Wilby: I got on very well with DCS Jessop from the first moment I met him: He is an engaging, articulate individual and, on the face of it, a very able and committed police officer. I also placed
PAGE 5 OF 6

Desperate moments as fans try to escape the crush

Any Officer giving false evidence will face prosecution

David Crompton

Tankersley Manor where DSC Jessop met Neil Wilby

great faith in his integrity at the time. After the Hillsborough Report alarm bells started ringing and uPSD have now re-visited three cases in which both DCS Jessop and Neil Wilby have been professionally involved. What has been uncovered does not square off with the current police spin that We are a very different force in 2012 from that in the Hillsborough era. Or, indeed, another Chief Constable Crompton party piece: If an officer has altered a statement or given false evidence then he will face criminal prosecution. The first of the three cases examined by uPSD involves an investigation carried out by South Yorkshire on behalf of West Yorkshire Police. It concerned a public complaint, following the wrongful arrest of a Bradford woman. There were also criminal allegations against a number of officers, including perjury and perverting the course of justice. Neil Wilby is acting as a complaint friend to Mrs Gabriel, the victim. The South Yorks Police investigation should have been greatly assisted by reference to a trial transcript in which the Circuit Judge found two police officers had plainly lied in his Court. HH Judge Benson also found that there was very significant irregularity and impropriety at the root of the investigation and the whole prosecution process was tarnished. In addition to all that there were nine prima facie breaches of PACE based only on the facts and evidence to be found in the trial bundle. HH Benson had also pronounced that he felt Mrs Gabriels arrest was oppressive and her treatment by the police gave him cause for concern. The complaint investigation began in August 2010 and the outcome notified to the complainant in June 2012. In an enquiry spanning almost two years South Yorkshire Police, in the face of the judges unequivocal pronouncements had failed to find one officer guilty of any crime and identified only one of the breaches of PACE. It was a masterclass in how not to run an investigation of this type: From the start when they failed to contact the complainant (or her solicitor who was on record), or take a victim statement, to the outcome which is plainly falsely contrived and designed only to cover up the truth in the best South Yorkshire Police tradition. It also breached every conceivable part of the IPCC Statutory Guidance which governs the investigation of public complaints against the police. The second case concerns a South Yorkshire traffic officer who produced a false CJA witness statement in pursuit of a speeding prosecution against Neil Wilby. It was how Mr Wilby became involved with South Yorkshire Police in the first place.

unProfessional Standards Department

South Yorkshire Police

Hillsborough Special
Volume 1, Issue 1

After filing his own evidence at Court the CPS dropped the case against Mr Wilby saying that there was no longer a reasonable prospect of a conviction based on the officers evidence. The policeman had lied in four key areas in his statement. He would have been decimated in the witness box. The same officer also faced allegations from Mr Wilby of criminal damage and a public order offence. The policeman had completely lost his temper and damaged Mr Wilbys car when leaving the scene. Fortunately, the incident has been recorded and that tape still exists. It has only very recently come to the attention of Mr Wilby that the traffic officer has faced no IPCCs Regional complaint or Commissioner Nicholas Long criminal investigation and has carried on normal duties throughout He was served with four Regulation 14 notices but DCS Jessop refused to initiate a criminal investigation whilst waiting for the outcome of a speeding offence. If the roles had been reversed and it was the police car that was damaged, or a member of the public had abused and behaved in a threatening manner towards the officer, or committed an offence of perjury before a Court then it is very, very unlikely that he or she would have faced no investigation or criminal charge. DCS Jessop has since pointedly refused to answer even the simplest of questions concerning the matter, including why there was no mandatory referral to the IPCC for an investigation decision, and uPSD have had to piece together their knowledge via HMCTS, the CPS and other inside police/ IPCC sources: Everyone keen to assist in the search for the truth, except DCS Jessop. The third matter was connected to the second and concerned the performance

of an officer involved at the onset of the complaint. She reported directly to Neil Jessop. At their second meeting at the Tankersley Manor Hotel a gentlemans agreement was reached between Neil Wilby and DCS Jessop. This was based on the fact that Mr Wilby thought he could trust DCS Jessop to dispose of the matter appropriately. In ordinary circumstances, there would be no way that such an agreement made by Mr Wilby would ever reach the public domain. It is not how he does business. The exposure of DCS Jessops deceit and evasiveness has changed all that. A blank Local Resolution form was given to Mr Wilby and he signed it and handed it back to DCS Jessop. That form was returned to Mr Wilby by post, after being filled in by DCS Jessop, some three weeks later. DCS Jessop had promised to carry out only one action in return which was to allocate his colleague to other duties outside of Complaints and Discipline Department and reduce her rank back to DCI. It was only two weeks ago that Mr Wilby discovered that she was still fully engaged in C&D. At that point, trust between the two Neils evaporated completely. Mr Wilby said: On the basis of only three known complaint matters, Neil Jessop has serious questions to answer regarding not only how his Professional Standards Department is run but concerning his own professionalism and integrity. It is the case, as West Yorkshire Police have found, that more and more questionable investigations will emerge as a result of these initial matters reaching the public domain via uPSD. He concluded: Apart from these more immediate concerns, I remain deeply troubled by Neil Jessops statement and his knowledge of the subsequent coverup. That will require further investigation. I do, however, readily acknowledge his efforts in assisting Liverpool fans in the pens and on the pitch at Hillsborough. That will always be to his eternal credit, whatever else comes out in the wash.

Neil Wilby Investigative journalist met DCS Jessop twice

Neil Jessop has serious questions to answer

Six questions the HASC must ask

Why did Crompton lie to press and TV about officers being prosecuted for altering evidence? That was never the policy at WYP and self-evidently not the case currently at SYP Why was DCS McKay consistently obstructed by the Command Team at West Yorkshire Police when investigating the cover up of another major corruption scandal? Why did Crompton allow a rotten to the core PSD to operate at West Yorkshire and is he culturing the same type of operation in South Yorkshire?

Why did Crompton deliberately mislead the press about persecution of BME officers at West Yorkshire including a current serving South Yorkshire detective. Why did Crompton wait until the publication of the Hillsborough report before taking action? He knew all about the altered statements long before then. What role has DCS Jessop played in the IPCC referrals and how does that square off with him knowing about the Hillsborough cover up from its outset?

Lord Falconer representing the Hillsborough families PAGE 6 OF 6