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’.
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.
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.
“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.
“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.
