In the wake of the damning report from the Independent Police Complaints Commission, The Northern Echo submitted a series of questions to Cleveland Police in an attempt to discover what the force had learnt from the fall-out from Operation Pomeroy.

QUESTION ONE: On television on Monday evening, when making a statement on the financial settlement with James Watson, the Police and Crime Commissioner, Barry Coppinger, effectively said: “It’s ok, we have insurance for this sort of thing.”

Is that really the right attitude to have over this? Is that not tantamount to giving officers the green light to behave wrongly, to act outside of the law? Is it not effectively the same as saying it is ok for a member of the public to drive in a criminal way as long as he or she is insured?

ANSWER: All public sector organisations will have similar arrangements regarding insurance. We work in a difficult and challenging world and we will make mistakes. It is important that we respond to the call from the public for the police to be open and transparent about the mistakes we make and apologise when appropriate.

QUESTION TWO: Is it right that police officers under investigation for suppressing evidence and/or wrongfully arresting innocent people should be allowed to retire on full pension? Would you agree that the public may think it is the establishment looking after its own?

ANSWER: Police officers’ pensions can only be removed if they are convicted of a criminal offence in a court. That is a decision for the Crown Prosecution Service and in this case they decided not to take the matter to court. There is no opportunity to affect police officers’ pensions following misconduct. It is not relevant for pension purposes whether he retired or was dismissed. However the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) investigation took almost another year to finalise after the officer’s retirement and the officer would have been suspended and off work with full pay for that period with a possibility that he would not have been dismissed or he would have appealed following any dismissal, which would have incurred significantly more costs to the taxpayer.

QUESTION THREE: Mr Coppinger spoke on Monday of lessons being learned. What are they? Is it not just trite political nonsense?

ANSWER: There is a comprehensive action plan in place including issues such as the selection and training of Senior Investigating Officers (SIOs), the use and monitoring of policy decision books, the introduction of regular reviews of long running investigations etc, and the plan is led by our new Head of Crime.

QUESTION FOUR: Can the public ever have confidence in the force? Are its days numbered? Is there a danger of juries misbelieving evidence provided by Cleveland Police in criminal trials? This could mean dangerous people walking free. Is that a danger for the force?

ANSWER: You need to have a look at the figures – confidence is high and crime is down. This is about a small number of people, who have been criticised for their conduct several years ago.

QUESTION FIVE: The relationship between Assistant Chief Constable White and Chief Inspector Tony Riordan is highlighted in the Independent Police Complaints Commission report. There is criticism of ACC White’s failure to make a declaration of interest and his decision-making when Ch Insp Riordan was not suspended. Do you accept those criticisms? What action has been taken as a result? Was he the right person to chair the panel which made that decision? Have the criticisms of his decision-making been addressed by the chief constable?

ANSWER: Since arriving in late 2011, the Chief Constable is the portfolio lead for Professional Standards and makes the decisions on suspensions. The process has been changed to a single decision maker. The IPCC has not asked for any formal action regarding ACC White. She was asked specifically by the IPCC to discuss how the process might be perceived – this has been done. The decisions about suspension must comply with the conditions set out in statutory guidance. There is no condition that states that suspension can be used to specifically prevent an officer retiring. On the evidence provided to ACC White the actual conditions as required were not met.

QUESTION SIX: Mr Coppinger said on Monday and again on Tuesday that he would like the IPCC report to be made public. Why can’t HE do that? What precisely prevents him, or the force, from releasing the findings or its key points? Do you accept accusations of a cover up?

ANSWER: Both the Chief Constable and the Police and Crime Commissioner support the publication of the report. However it is currently a confidential report which belongs to the IPCC and the timing of the publication is a matter for them. You cannot criticise the force or Commissioner for abiding by the rules and then expect us to bend them to suit you.