Series of errors made in vetting checks of disgraced chief constable, review finds
Mistakes were made on Nick Adderley's initial appointment in 2018 and again in 2023 when the dishonest officer rejoined the Northants force after retirement
By Sarah Ward
A review into how fantasist chief constable Nick Adderley made it to the top police job in Northamptonshire, has found a series of failures in his employment checks and vetting.
A number of different agencies including the now defunct multi force collaboration that Northamptonshire Police used for human resources, the replacement in house team and the national vetting service all fell short in a series of errors which allowed the dishonest chief constable to take up post in 2018 and then again after his short retirement last year.
Adderley, 57, had his lies exposed in a gross misconduct hearing in June, in which it was found that a number of claims on his CV were total fantasy, including his claim that he had studied at the prestigious Britannia Naval College in Dartmouth, which has turned out many of the country’s most senior naval officers.
In reality he had never been and had only served in the navy for a couple of years in the early 1980s, never making it beyond the lowest rank of able seaman. Incredibly his misconduct hearing heard his reason for making the bogus claim was to show how ambitious he was.
Other lies included claims he had been a military negotiator in Haiti and he led many to believe he had served in the Falklands conflict by wearing fake medals.
In a statement issued with the report today, temporary chief constable Ivan Balhatchet, who stepped into the role after Adderely’s suspension, said the episode was a ‘dark chapter’ in the history of the force and said he would take action to ensure no other senior officer slips through the net.
Mistakes
Errors were made from the start as the usual pre employment checks were not made before Adderley arrived in Northants in August 2018. These should have been done by the Multi Force Shared Services (MFSS), which had formed in 2012 by Cheshire Police (Adderley’s former employer) and which Northamptonshire Police, along with a couple of other forces was a member. (The MFSS was wound up in recent years and we have asked both Northants Police and Cheshire Police for the reasons for this).
Despite listing a Cambridge masters degree on his CV (which he apparently gained while an officer at Greater Manchester Police in 2011), this was not checked by the MFSS as it should have been done. The review said there were no records of the checks happening and also pointed to a lack of detailed records from MFSS.
Northamptonshire Police does not appear to have checked the degree claim itself further to Adderley’s dishonest character coming to light.
The introduction to the review says:
“The purpose is to improve process, it is not a reinvestigation or further investigation of any misconduct or criminal matters relating to NA, which sit rightly outside of the organisation.”
It remains unknown whether Nick Adderley ever gained a masters degree from the country’s foremost university. What was established at the gross misconduct hearing is that his highest level of academic qualifications prior to those he claimed he gained while a senior officer, were O Levels.
Senior police officers are subject to developed vetting procedures - which is the most comprehensive level of security vetting, necessary for officers who may come across highly confidential or state security information as part of their work.
Northants Police had been sent the developed vetting by Adderley’s former employer Staffordshire Police, where he had been an assistant chief constable since 2015. This form covered him from 2017 to 2024.
The review found that because Adderley had passed developed vetting it was ‘assumed’ he had the management vetting, a lesser tier of vetting which is a prerequisite of anyone who gets through developed vetting. The review could not find any evidence of Adderley having the management vetting prior to his joining Northants. (A recommendation of the review is that it now contacts Staffordshire Police to enquire about vetting status and refers any issues to Staffordshire’s police commissioner).
The review has also exposed the flaws in record keeping in the police force and commissioners office. While Adderley passed the application stage in summer 2018 before going on to be interviewed at three panels, a record of questions and answers has not been kept. The force only keeps application forms for 12 months according to the review, which it says has made checking details difficult.
Adderley retired from the force in early 2023, after an agreement with the then police commissioner Stephen Mold which would see his pension protected, and subsequently had to go through management vetting when he rejoined a few months later.
But the review found that despite Adderley putting details of his military service on his 2023 application form, he did not supply his rank number and checks were not made. This could have exposed that his claimed military history was false. But the checks were not made by Northamptonshire Police vetting team.
Checks during the review also found the national security vetting service - which is run by the home office - also does not have a record of the developed vetting from 2017 provided to Northants by Staffs Police. After the check into Adderley, the service went to digital records and did not transfer old files across.
As part of the review, senior officers in the force, many of whom were promoted by Nick Adderley, have had their employment checks and vetting looked at again. No issues have been found.
Interim chief constable Ivan Balhatchet said:
“This has been a very dark chapter in the history of Northamptonshire Police, but I am absolutely determined to get right to the heart of all the issues which have surfaced since the original allegations were brought to the attention of the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) a year ago.
“This report is difficult reading because there undoubtedly were very significant failings in the processes leading up to the appointment of Nick Adderley in 2018 and the handling of his vetting renewal in 2023. We are taking robust action to ensure this situation will never arise again and that officers and staff as well as the communities we serve across Northamptonshire, have the utmost confidence in our processes going forward.”
Recommendations
The review has made eight recommendations which include reviewing whether application forms should be kept longer than 12 months; evidence to be provided by any candidate of degree qualifications and regular dip sampling of vetting files.
The police, fire and crime commissioner Danielle Stone has said she supports the approach Ivan Balhatchet has taken.
She said:
“It’s disappointing that more thorough checks were not carried out when Nick Adderley was appointed. I’m pleased that the lessons have been learned, and processes and systems will be strengthened, and standards raised to give the public confidence in the recruitment of senior policeofficers.
“I’ve already begun conversations with the Home Office to highlight the gap between national and local systems and to explore what can be done.
“I’m grateful to the Acting Chief Constable Ivan Balhatchet for this clear and thorough review, produced and published so quickly. Transparency and integrity must be at the heart of everything we do.”
More "lessons learned" statements but no accountability.
Who is being held accountable for these failures? If a regular bobby neglected their duty like this they'd be in front of a panel on a misconduct charge, yet those responsible for this mess fail time and again and never face scrutiny for their incompetence or negligence.
The organisation will nod sagely and prattle on about "lessons being learned" instead of taking responsibility, but these are lessons that those responsible already knew full well, yet still they failed to do their job. There is a 'neglect of duty' clause in the Misconduct in Public Office definition, and it should be applied to whoever was so wilful negligent in this instance.