20. Norman Bettison’s appointment as Chief Constable of Merseyside Police
What was investigated?
The IOPC’s terms of reference included investigating:
The following specific complaints/conduct matters relating solely to Sir Norman Bettison and not already covered elsewhere in the terms of reference:
a) whether Sir Norman Bettison was deliberately dishonest in relation to his involvement in the Hillsborough investigation during the application and appointment process for the post of Chief Constable of Merseyside Police in 1998
b) the nature and extent of various statements made by Sir Norman Bettison to the press and any other actions after publication of the Hillsborough Independent Panel Report, based on allegations that this was part of a continued effort to deflect blame away from SYP towards others, particularly Liverpool supporters
What was found?
• During the initial application process, there was no point at which Norman Bettison was asked about his involvement in SYP’s response to the disaster. This meant there was no point during this phase when he should have declared this involvement.
• Most of the Appointments Committee who decided to appoint Norman Bettison as Chief Constable of Merseyside Police have confirmed they were aware he had been involved in SYP’s response to the disaster. Two stated that when they appointed him, they were not aware of his involvement.
• After protests against the appointment, Norman Bettison issued a statement in which he confirmed he had been involved in SYP’s response to the disaster. However, the description he gave of his role was not accurate and omitted some significant activities he performed.
• There were also inaccuracies in the description he gave to the Merseyside Police Authority (MPA) of his involvement in the disaster. Together, these give the impression that he deliberately downplayed the extent of his involvement in SYP’s response.
• Similar criticisms can be made of the public statements he gave after the HIP Report was published.
• The evidence is inconclusive about whether Norman Bettison told his MBA classmates that SYP intended to blame supporters for the disaster. Only two of the 14 interviewed by the IOPC recall him saying this.
Significant new evidence
The major new evidence in relation to this part of the investigation came in the form of statements from MPA members and various witnesses, plus the prepared statements of Norman Bettison. The IOPC also reviewed other applications he made for senior roles around this time.
- At the time of the disaster, Norman Bettison was a chief inspector at SYP. He was at the stadium as a spectator on the day of the disaster and responded to the emerging situation by helping organise an information point for those trying to find a missing friend or family member. As has been detailed throughout this report, he was then involved in various aspects of SYP’s response to the disaster, including the production of the proof of evidence, and compiling a video, which he presented to MPs.
- By October 1989, he had been promoted to superintendent. In 1992, he successfully applied to become an assistant chief constable at West Yorkshire Police (WYP). In 1998, he then applied to become Chief Constable of Merseyside Police: the force which serves the Liverpool area.
- Following an application process which was based on best practice guidelines at the time, he was appointed Chief Constable of Merseyside Police in October 1998. However, his appointment was met with protests by family members of those who had died, due to his association with the disaster. It was suggested that he had deliberately avoided telling the Appointments Committee of the MPA (which was responsible for appointing the Chief Constable) about his involvement in SYP’s response to the disaster. Having discovered the extent of Norman Bettison’s role in SYP’s response, two members of the Appointments Committee stepped down in protest at his appointment.
- The IOPC investigated the appointment of Norman Bettison as Chief Constable of Merseyside and in particular the allegation that he in some way lied to or misled the Appointments Committee during the application process. It also looked at a separate allegation against him related to the contents of two public statements he made in 2012, following the publication of the HIP Report. The core of this second allegation was that in those statements, he did not fully or accurately describe his role in SYP’s response to the disaster.