As an interim measure, this is a contemporaneous record of notes taken during the substantive part of the proceedings of Tuesday 2nd June, 2020, in the hearing of gross misconduct allegations against former assistant chief constable, Steven Heywood. A more complete report will appear later.
This was the second of three days listed for the hearing. Most of the first day’s session was taken up with an opening by Gerard Boyle QC, representing the chief constable of Greater Manchester Police and a viperous response from John Beggs QC, for Heywood, who sought a stay of the proceedings under sections 19 and 21 of the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2012.
Those concern prejudice against an officer, the subject of misconduct proceedings, in the event of protracted and inexplicable delay. Beggs QC described the conduct of the misconduct proceedings by GMP as ‘an omnishambles’.
He also complained bitterly about ‘equality of arms’, in terms of legal representation and funding. In which he felt that his lay client was seriously disadvantaged.
This disciplinary hearing was brought about by Heywood’s seriously troubling evidence given at a public inquiry into the shooting of Gail Hadfield Grainger’s partner, Anthony Grainger, in 2012. It was Gail’s articulate, dignified but persistent campaigning that largely brought about the inquiry.
The Crown Prosecution Service subsequently refused to prosecute Heywood after he lied on oath at the inquiry and it transpired that he had altered police logs post-facto. They said the evidence was ‘insufficient’ to secure a conviction.
Gail was refused a review of that inexplicable decision on the grounds that she wasn’t regarded by the CPS as a victim.
Decision of Panel, as delivered by Legally Qualified Chair, NAHIED ASJAD LLB (Hons) LLM. [There are a number of typographical errors in the note-taking, these will be corrected at the earliest opportunity].
“These are misconduct proceedings brought by the chief constable of Greater Manchester Police, as the appropriate authority, against former ACC Steven Heywood. The proceedings commenced on Monday 1st June, 2020 and the matter was listed for three days.
“Yesterday, we heard submissions from Mr Boyle QC on behalf of the appropriate authority, and Mr Beggs QC on behalf of Mr Heywood this morning. Mr Boyle QC invited the panel to recommend that the charges against Mr Haywood be dismissed.
“In his submissions, on behalf of the appropriate authority, Mr Boyle stated that the appropriate authority had concluded that it cannot in good conscience, seek to pursue these matters further.
“Well, in this Panel ‘in good conscience’ cannot dismiss the allegations against Mr Heywood, without stating the following. What we are about to say is not directed at Mr Boyle QC, but is directed towards the appropriate authority [Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police]. We, as a Panel, were convened to hear Gross Misconduct allegations against Mr Heywood; one of the purposes of misconduct proceedings is to maintain public trust and confidence in the police service. The integrity of the police system can only be upheld if officers who are alleged to have committed misconduct proceedings are dealt with appropriately.
“Mr Grainger was shot on 3rd March, 2012. His death has been the subject of a public inquiry, a CPS prosecution and these Gross Misconduct proceedings. We learned yesterday that the same legal department of Greater Manchester Police had been involved in all of these proceedings, in one way or another, yet it is manifestly obvious that no one has strategic oversight of all of these matters. How else can it be explained that matters that today are said to be inevitable and unfair, when not seen in the same light by the same legal team after the IOPC completed its investigation, following a complaint in relation to Mr Heywood.
“The appropriate authority has said that it does not accept the colourful descriptions by Mr Beggs QC of funding by GMP of a chaotic and shambolic approach. This panel goes further however, and states that there has been a fundamental disregard to everyone involved in these proceedings. And by that we mean the family of Mr Grainger, interested parties, Mr Heywood and the public.
“All the expectations and faith in the misconduct process that these individuals had, has been held in abeyance whilst the appropriate authority attempted to sort out issues that, according to its own chronology, it had been working on since at least March, 2019. That chronology shows that they spent nine months, attempting to resolve the issue of intelligence and its impact on the misconduct proceedings. And, according to Mr Boyle, did so in good faith.
“Yet, that cannot be right as, despite not having resolved those issues, they decided to bring these misconduct proceedings. And now, in June 2020, have gone the other way. As we have already noted, up until Friday of last week, they had even prepared the case for hearing with an opening note, in which they relied on a blanket prohibition on the redactions. We are deeply concerned that, despite advice from counsel, despite assistance from the National Crime Agency, and most importantly, despite knowing the history of the case and the outcomes and the criminal proceedings, it is only now two years after the IPCC report was sent to GMP that they now say that they have reflected on the position and realised the inevitable and have been persuaded that it would be unfair to proceed. Reflection and realisation should have occured much sooner. Instead, the family of Mr Grainger are having to leave these proceedings without an outcome.
“They and the public were led to believe, by the very fact that these proceedings were brought, that at least the allegations of Gross Misconduct would be heard. Similarly, Mr Heywood has had to face these allegations for years, only to be told today that the appropriate authority, would be offering no evidence.
“Mr Grainger’s family, Mr Heywood and the public, have been let down by the appropriate authority in this case, and we note that there was no contrition, or apology, to anyone in what was said on their behalf this morning.
“Public confidence in the police force can be undermined if the proceedings themselves are so flawed by delay and bad decision making. But, ultimately, they lead to charges being dismissed, the costs involved in bringing such Gross Misconduct proceedings cannot be in the public interest, either the appropriate authority has accepted delay in this case, as well as procedural irregularity in that the regulation 19 and 21 notices were not issued as soon as reasonably practicable.
“We note that the appropriate authority said that they would be very happy to attend and explain the steps taken, following the CPS decision and progress made but, in the end, doing so would have been an academic exercise.
“This Panel feels that everyone would have been greatly assisted in understanding what has happened in this case, had they heard direct from the appropriate authority, because even now, as we stand here today, it’s not clear why these delays and procedural errors have occurred.
“We do find it necessary to mention that we also have some criticism of the way the defence conducted themselves in response to these proceedings. Nowhere in the regulation 22 response was there any mention of the redactions request being an extant issue. It was mentioned twice in a 23 page document comprising 82 paragraphs. At paragraph 7 it was mentioned in brackets, in the following way. “It would be helpful if the appropriate authority lifted the redactions in this section, to better content contextualise his answer. The second time it was mentioned was in paragraph 66, where it was said, it makes it more difficult for him to answer the issues in this misconduct case with redactions.
ements of a regulation 22 response is that the officer should provide, to the appropriate authority, written notice of whether he accepts the conduct amounts to misconduct, or Gross Misconduct, any submissions he wishes to make in mitigation and which parts of the case he disputes was written notice of the allegations he disputes, and any arguments on points of law, he wishes to be considered.
“Nowhere in the Regulation 22 response was there any reference to Mr Heywood having actively pursued the issue of redactions. Nowhere was it said that this was an outstanding matter, or that the case could not be pursued fairly as it stood, or that illegal point was being taken.
“This only added, therefore, to the surprise that the Panel felt at the turn of events yesterday when Mr Beggs advanced it repeatedly, and that the redactions point was an obvious issue, and had always been since 2018. Indeed, yesterday it was cited as the central issue. But even in the letter to Laura Shuttleworth, which was produced in the bundle it doesn’t say that the issue of redactions was raised as an ongoing or outstanding issue.
“That had been going on for a year, but only on the basis that Mr Heywood needed them so he could remember his evidence, and it was a request that the appropriate authority should consider it.
“We mentioned that, just to make it clear that that didn’t help matters either in the way that they have been progressed in this case. Turning to the decision that needs to be made. Mr Heywood has retired from the police, these proceedings are brought under the Police Conduct Regulations 2012. As amended, and so he’s being dealt with as ‘a former officer case’, the panel will know that at the conclusion of this hearing.
“We have a duty to produce a report to the appropriate authority, recording our findings, our reason for those findings and a recommendation. We have been invited to make a recommendation that the charges be dismissed. And in the light of what we have said, we make that recommendation today. And that’s all we want to say about this matter.
But can we just, through your good offices, point out that a number of media outlets seems to be labouring under the misapprehension that the firearms operation on 3rd March 2012 was not commanded by ACC Steve Heywood. As you know, and I’m grateful that you’re nodding. It wasn’t just as a matter of good reporting and accurate reporting. Could I ask you to make clear that he did not command the operation which led to the shooting of Mr Grainger, lest anyone makes a mistake on that point.
**** NAHIED ASJAD
Absolutely, the facts in this case, need to be understood. Mr Heywood only faced Gross Misconduct allegations as a result of answers that he gave at the public inquiry in 2017, and it was a result of a log that he kept the day before. This incident took place when he had command, but he then rescinded the order, the actual order was made by a different officer. So, the shooting of Mr Grainger, tragically, did not occur, whilst under the command of Mr Heywood and it’s very important that that distinction is made, I agree.
Thank you very much for that, because the press are more likely to listen to us and to me. Okay. Thank you.
No matter of justice, but to thank you and your colleagues for your consideration of the issues in this particular case. Your comments, I’m sure, will resonate with those who are instructing me. Thank you.
*** NAHIED ASJAD
Thank you. Can I thank both yourself and Mr Beggs QC for your very thorough consideration and presentation of the case. And thank you to everyone who has helped with this Microsoft Teams hearing, and its administration. Mr Heywood, that is the end of the case against you. I hope we can move on from this. Miss Gail Hadfield Grainger, thank you for the way in which you’ve conducted yourself during these proceedings, you’ve conducted yourself impeccably and with the greatest of patience and we are grateful for that. That is the end of the hearing. So I’m now going to be formally closing proceedings Thank you everyone.
The Panel Chair, Nahied Asjad is an experienced Crown Advocate and has worked for the CPS since qualifying as a Solicitor in 2002 and transferred to the Bar in 2007. She has prosecuted in all courts, including the Magistrates Court and the Youth Court and currently works as a Crown Court advocate, dealing with serious offences. Nahied is a trained Pre-Trial Witness Interviewer and Proceeds of Crime Specialist and was the lead lawyer in the largest money laundering case in Leicester, leading to a £5 million confiscation order. Nahied reviews offences at the police station and decides upon charge and prepares cases in the office and makes decisions as to whether or not to prosecute.
The response of the force and an unreserved apology
Greater Manchester Police’s Deputy Chief Constable Ian Pilling, about whom plenty is said elsewhere on this website, said the force made the decision not to pursue the proceedings further and invited the Panel to dismiss the gross misconduct charges against Mr Heywood following submissions made at the hearing:
“This misconduct case involved consideration of some complex issues relating to certain information and intelligence which, for legal reasons, could not be provided to Mr Heywood and could not be made public or indeed even shared with the panel dealing with the misconduct hearing.
“Evidence relating to those things was heard in private at the Anthony Grainger Public Inquiry and as such was redacted from the public records of that Inquiry.
“The law concerning what can be disclosed in a public inquiry is different from that in misconduct proceedings.”
Pilling, who holds the Command Team professional standards portfolio in GMP, said the force accepted some of these matters “could not be overcome” and it would be “unfair to pursue the case against the retired officer” following submissions made to the Panel on Monday.
“These are complex issues and the available options were often constrained by the law.
“Decisions have been made based on professional advice and in the best interests of reaching the most appropriate outcome. However, in this case this hasn’t been possible, which I very much regret.
In answer to the stinging criticism made by the Panel Chair, Pilling said: “In her comments, the Chair has been clear that the Panel are of the view that GMP did not deal with some key elements of this matter in an appropriate way.
“Whilst we need to examine the comments more fully, we absolutely accept that mistakes have been made and this matter should have been handled much more effectively.
“We apologise unreservedly for the errors which were made, in particular to the family and partner of Anthony Grainger and to all other involved parties.”
On behalf of the Grainger family, friends and campaigners Gail Hadfield Grainger said:
“This misconduct hearing follows on from a public inquiry, where the police were to blame for killing a man, due to inaccurate intelligence, about which Mr Heywood later went on to mislead the Inquiry. Questioned on the validity of entries he made in a contemporaneous log he admitted that some had been forged using different coloured pens and backdated.
“These matters need to be taken seriously. Given the stark criticisms made in Judge Teagues report, and now the manner in which GMP have delayed this misconduct hearing, and in my opinion, purposely, to ensure it does not go ahead, this is not in the name of justice, but to save the Chief Constable and the force further embarrassment”.
“This misconduct process was set up to fail and the reasons behind its collapse need to be taken up at the highest level and those responsible brought to book. It makes a mockery of Teague’s report, of the justice system, to this Panel, and, most of all, it makes a mockery of the public”.
Holding to account
The person responsible for holding the chief constable to account, Greater Manchester Mayor, Andy Burnham, did not respond to a request for comment.
On Friday 21st August a very short remote hearing took place under Regulation 34 of the Police Conduct Regulations 2012, applicable in this particular case. The chair, DCC Pilling, who is also Appropriate Authority and responsible almost entirely for the Heywood debacle, determined that no disciplinary sanction would be applied to the former assistant chief constable in the light of the Panel’s decision at the June hearing.
Steve Heywood did not attend the proceedings and neither did his legal team. Gerard Boyle QC, counsel to GMP, was in attendance but had nothing to add to Pilling’s decision.
Page last updated: Friday 21st August, 2020 at 1345 hours
Corrections: Please let me know if there is a mistake in this article. I will endeavour to correct it as soon as possible.
Right of reply: If you are mentioned in this article and disagree with it, please let me have your comments. Provided your response is not defamatory it will be added to the article.
© Neil Wilby 2015-2020. Unauthorised use, or reproduction, of the material contained in this article, without permission from the author, is strictly prohibited. Extracts from, and links to, the article (or blog) may be used, provided that credit is given to Neil Wilby, with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.