Disciplinary panel looking into 'whopping lies' by Northamptonshire Chief Constable Nick Adderley accused of bias

The hearing, that should have been over in three days, had been dragged into a fourth after multiple legal interventions which saw late evidence challenged then admitted.

Today the three-man independent panel of legally qualified chair Callum Cowx, former Chief Constable of Merseyside Police Andy Cooke and member James Maund waited to find out if a key witness was prepared to give evidence to the hearing, while Mr Cowx said he would use the time for other matters.

But the use of time turned out to be a ‘depth charge’ of questions that may have scuppered the proceedings.

Since Mr Adderley had declined to give evidence to the panel in person, Mr Cowx told the hearing the questions he would have put to the Chief Constable and invited him once again to speak.

Going through his notes one by one, Mr Cowx pointed out nearly a dozen alleged discrepancies between Mr Adderley’s navy service record and other evidence in a bundle before the panel.

They included that Mr Adderley had ‘lumped together’ his Royal Navy service with his time in the Sea Cadets, that Mr Adderley did not have the minimum academic requirements – English Language O Level or A Levels that would have been needed for education claims made in job applications – and that Mr Adderley was in charge of a sea boat crew to tow a stricken frigate when he didn’t have the qualification.

He said: “In my experience under no circumstance would an acting able seaman or acting able seaman be entrusted with that responsibility. He would not have been a coxswain. That would have been given to a much more senior person. I do not see a sea boat coxswain qualification on his record.”

For each point, Mr Cowx referred to Mr Adderley’s CV claims comparing them with the reality of his official service record. Addressing the hearing – attended by members of the media, three members of the public and a number of Mr Adderley’s supporters – Mr Cowx used his own experience in the Royal Navy to examine the points he had wished to raise.

It was after a break in proceedings, to allow efforts to track down a journalist who could have evidence for the hearing, that Mr Matthew Holdcroft, defending the Chief Constable, applied to the panel members to recuse themselves due to the ‘depth charge’ of ‘biased’ evidence put before the hearing.

Arguing that Mr Cowx had a ‘concluded view on the matter’, Mr Holdcroft said: “Members of the public have approached me saying that you are not conducting these proceedings fairly. It is the strongest possible indication that the fair-minded and independent observer would form the view that the panel is biased – and they must recuse themselves."

After listening patiently to Mr Holdcroft, the sometimes open-mouthed Mr Cowx then invited tJohn Beggs, KC counsel for the Police, Fire Crime Commissioner (PFCC) to speak.

Mr Beggs, at times with his head in his hands, put forward a counter argument saying Mr Adderley had told ‘whopping lies’ including claiming to be a military negotiator in Haiti – a country where he had never visited.

Addressing the panel, he said: “If this case is proven, it will inevitably end Mr Adderley’s career. The intense efforts to remove you are the fear that you will bring a very helpful expertise to the table. This is an assiduous attempt to get this panel to never come to a conclusion. This is a tactic to attack the panel to put off the ‘evil day’.”

Responding to Mr Beggs and the 11 points raised by Mr Cowx, Mr Holdcroft referenced Ian Fleming, the writer who created fictional Navy Commander James Bond.

Mr Holdcroft said: “Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action – and at eleven – what would Bond make of that?”

With the application to recuse the panel to be decided by the panel themselves, using transcripts yet to be prepared from recordings of the hearing, the proceedings were adjourned until June 20.

Mr Adderley faces gross misconduct allegations to the effect that he has inter alia exaggerated the rank, duration and achievements in his service with the Royal Navy and implied that he served in the Falklands War in breach of several standards of professional behaviour.