Day or night, you won't miss a story with the Liverpool Echo newsletter Sign me up now Thank you for subscribing We have more newsletters Show me See our privacy notice Invalid Email

FORMER Merseyside chief constable Sir Norman Bettison has a case to answer for “discreditable conduct and abuse of authority” in the wake of last year’s Hillsborough revelations, the police watchdog has found.

But the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) said it was powerless to take any further action because he was no longer a serving officer.

It said this did not mean he was guilty, that verdict could only come from a misconduct hearing which was not possible due to his resignation.

But IPCC chair Deborah Glass said that while the IPCC cannot bring misconduct proceedings, “we can publish the evidence and our conclusions, so that the public can judge for themselves”. You can read the IPCC report in full by clicking here .

* Click here to visit our online Hillsborough archive

The damning IPCC report also reveals that West Yorkshire Police Authority “required his resignation” in October after weeks of pressure over his role in the cover-up after the 1989 disaster which claimed 96 lives.

In September he defiantly claimed fans’ behaviour at the Hillsborough disaster made the job of the police harder than it needed to be – a view not supported by the findings of the Hillsborough Independent Panel. He later apologised.

On September 15, three days after the release of the Hillsborough Independent Panel’s report, the West Yorkshire Police Authority decided to refer him to the IPCC for his alleged role in the cover-up as exposed in the panel’s report.

It also referred his press statement the day after the report, as he said that while police were to blame, fans’ behaviour on the day had not helped the situation.

But the police authority later made a further complaint of an allegation to the IPCC that Mr Bettison “had attempted to influence the decision-making process of the authority in connection with the previous referral”.

The IPCC said at the heart of the allegations are discrepancies between his version of events and that of the police authority chair Mark Burns-Williamson and chief executive Fraser Sampson.

The IPCC said Mr Bettison was not trying to resist the referral, but instead control the process.

“On the balance of probabilities the evidence in relation to his desire to refer supports the account of the chief executive, and on that basis we have found Sir Norman has a case to answer for discreditable conduct and abuse of authority,” states its 16-page report.

Mr Bettison’s actions after the 1989 disaster and his alleged role in the cover-up are still being investigated by the IPCC as part of their wider probe into the actions of the police after the tragedy. He was chief constable of Merseyside between 1998 and 2005.

“The Hillsborough disaster and its aftermath have become synonymous in the public consciousness with allegations of police attempts to cover-up the truth, manipulate messages and deflect blame,” states the report.

“Sir Norman is facing investigation in relation to allegations that he played a key part in this. We do not pre-judge the findings of that investigation.

“However, given the effect that those allegations have had on the public perception of him and policing generally, his attempts to manipulate and manage the perception of the referral of complaints about him, for his own self-interest, is particularly concerning.

“It is also conduct that falls far short of what should be expected of any Chief Constable.”

Sir Norman Bettison's lawyer, John Harding said: "The IPCC has recognised that my client, Sir Norman Bettison, did himself wish to be investigated by the IPCC in connection with allegations made in respect of Hillsborough. He remains keen to see that the investigation into the substantive matters is progressed as quickly as possible.

"The IPCC has decided that it considers my client acted improperly in seeking approval from the Police Authority to refer himself to the IPCC. The decision that there is a case to answer, is not a finding of guilt. This point is accepted, explicitly, in the foreword of the IPCC report and it therefore sits, uncomfortably, with some of the comments in the investigator's report, made after an incomplete investigation.

"Sir Norman voluntarily attended interview, provided a written statement and invited the IPCC to interview witnesses. Since there can be no formal misconduct hearing my client is denied the opportunity to call those witnesses, which the IPCC declined to interview, and is denied the opportunity to put his case and challenge other evidence, which calls into question the fairness of such a process."

* Hillsborough - the long road to justice. The story so far in our interactive timeline