Chief constable's war medal is fake, expert tells misconduct hearing
On day two of the disciplinary hearing, an expert says Nick Adderley's medal is not genuine and the chief constable refuses to be cross examined.
By Nadia Lincoln and Sarah Ward
The Falkands War medal Northants’ suspended chief constable paraded at official engagements was a fake, his disciplinary has heard.
A medal expert told the panel at Nick Adderley’s gross misconduct hearing today that he was he was “110 per cent sure” it was not genuine.
Adderley, who has been suspended on full pay since October, is accused of exaggerating his naval career. During the hearing it has been established through checks with his military records that he only served for two years and stayed on the lowest rank. However for years he has been claiming to served for ten years and to have been a naval officer, with the CV which helped get him the top job at Northants police incorrectly stating that he was a naval commander.
Adderley’s past career came into the spotlight last year after an ex wife contacted the police, fire and crime commissioner’s office with her concerns about his naval boasts. He has for many years been wearing medals to official engagements, including the South Atlantic Medal, which was given to war veterans who served in the conflict with Argentina in 1982. After the Sun ran an article casting doubts on his war claims, he said the medal belonged to his brother Rick, who had emigrated to Australia. Adderley had been wearing the medal on the left side, which is the side war veterans display their medals. Those who wear relatives’ medals must display them on the right.
The medal was the subject of much of the hearing today.
An expert from the MOD medal office, Chris Hayward, was called to the stand for the counsels to examine. He said he had seen “hundreds if not thousands” of South Atlantic Medals during his career.
Mr Hayward checked Mr Adderley’s medal after the Independent Office for Police Conduct sent it for inspection during their investigation. He said the medal was of a “poorer quality” than official Falklands medals.
He added that he could tell “virtually straight away” that it was not made of the same material.
“A lot of the copy medals, they look more blingy, more shiny and you can just tell straight away. When it’s cupronickel the medal is heavier and it’s got a darker look to it as well,” he continued.
Mr Hayward added he was “110 per cent sure” that it was a ‘copy’ medal. He said it was thrown away after inspection, as is the procedure for non-genuine medals.
However, the defence counsel, led by Matthew Holdcroft, contended that they could not be sure the medal provided for inspection was the same one that was worn by Nick Adderley and subsequently sent off by the IOPC.
They cited discrepancies between the notes of the lead investigator for the case for the IOPC, Neil Collins, and the report written by medal expert Mr Hayward.
Mr Collins said he observed the engraving on Adderley’s medal was “very crude”. He also said he saw what he thought was a military service number when Mr Hayward said there was none.
A note from the police commissioner’s legal team, which has been supplied to the media, makes it clear that his brother Rick, was not awarded a Falklands medal and would not have qualified for one as he served onboard MV Cedarbank in the South Atlantic from July 1982, several weeks after the hostilities ended. The note also reveals that Rick applied for the prestigious medal in October last year, the same month Adderley was suspended.
During today’s hearing Adderley’s defence counsel also attempted to make the point to the panel that there was ‘no case to answer’ for the top cop. He said the claims that Adderley had purposefully been untruthful to conjure the image that he served in the Falklands and held the rank of an officer were based on “inferences and innuendo”.
He continued:
“He has only described himself as ‘former Royal Navy personnel’ or ‘ex-military’.
“He has been culpable of being sloppy, not checking things, not thinking things through with the diligence he should have done. You cannot find him culpable of dishonesty.”
Mr Holdcroft said Mr Adderley’s exaggerated history was a result of reporting in the media where quotes were being attributed to him. He said the chief constable was being “beaten with” articles which he was not responsible for.
Mr Beggs KC, the counsel for the police commissioner’s office, rebutted saying he chose to open his own application with the assertion that he was a senior ranking officer and that he served in the navy for 11 years, when in fact it was only two.
He said: “That alone obliterates pretty much everything my learned friend says. That’s just a lie on the opening page of his application, not to join a local tennis club, but to become a chief constable.
“You might say, you know what, that was just a bit lazy. Or you might say, you know what, when we look at all of this together this was a campaign of dishonesty.
“Out of his own mouth, he condemns himself.”
After deliberation with his legal team Adderley, chose not to give evidence before the panel and so has not spoken a word during the two days so far. It is now unlikely that will not be cross examined by John Beggs KC. Both counsels will begin their summing up of the evidence tomorrow.
Adderley admitted yesterday that he “breached standards” in terms of duties and responsibilities, but denies gross misconduct and that he “acted without honesty and integrity”.
The hearing continues.
As farcical as this whole sorry situation is, the hideousness of how much this is costing the taxpayer (venue, Beggs, staff and panel members) this is at least blunted slightly, by the equally blunt and cynical statements made by Mr Beggs who seems he has the measure of Adderley. The tennis club comment or the times he adopted a common "saff landan" accent to impersonate a person down the pub to highlight severity of a DV form raised more than a few laughs.
As a KC I'd expect no less from him, but it is still fascinating to watch him dissect the lies Adderley is trying to foist upon the entire populace of Northants, assuming us all to be fools. He would have always known he never planned to give evidence but wasted an entire day of tax payers money with numerous applications to have things thrown out, then delaying taking the stand before at 3.30 with the whole day wasted announcing he was not going to give evidence.
An utter coward who said he looked forward to giving a fulsome response to these allegations has failed to do just that. This is only my opinion but the only viable reason why he could be advised not to give evidence, would be if that evidence would incriminate him further, and the only way your evidence incriminates you is if you are guilty of some degree of wrongdoing.
He spent most of the day pretending to make notes on his copies of paperwork, but if you watched him at length, he was drawing a circle in the corner of the paper, trying to appear aloof and engaged with the process as though he is still of high standing. He is finished and he knows it, yet still cannot grasp this is a situation of his own making opting to lie to the very end.
I think this person needs to make a public apology to all Falkland veterans and the families of those who gave their lives in this conflict. Calling him a Walter Mitty is not enough. Liar is much more accurate.