Police chief in clear as inspector drops case
Reporter: Richard Hooton
Date published: 11 September 2009
HALTED... the tribunal involving Chief Supt Caroline Ball (above) and Insp Steve McGarry (below) has been dropped
A TRIBUNAL in which the head of Oldham police was accused of dishonesty and a lack of integrity was dramatically halted after an Inspector withdrew his claim.
As revealed exclusively in yesterday’s Chronicle, Chief Supt Caroline Ball added Insp Steve McGarry’s signature to a report he claims he never saw, read or witnessed.
The document stated that Insp McGarry should not be promoted to chief inspector because he was not ready for the advanced role.
Insp McGarry was an acting chief inspector in Oldham until 2007, having passed his assessment but not the promotion board who received the report. He appealed and then launched a grievance procedure.
He claimed he suffered detrimentally because his disclosures about her actions were never properly investigated by senior officers.
Half-way through the Manchester tribunal, Insp McGarry, now working in the city, withdrew his case.
Chairman Michael Coles said the claim was therefore dismissed and rejected an application by Greater Manchester Police for costs.
Moments earlier he had advised Insp McGarry that while it was the policeman’s perception he had been treated detrimentally, that was not enough to substantiate his claim.
He warned that pursuing a case when it was not appropriate to do so could result in costs being awarded against him. He added that the claimant had conducted his case properly and had not made allegations of dishonesty in the sense of deliberately lying but in the sense of evasion of responsibility.
Earlier, former assistant chief officer for human resources, Andrew Marston, gave evidence for the force.
Chief Supt Ball had told him she was not entirely satisfied with the claimant’s performance as he did not take the initiative when left to his own devices. He had not expected Insp McGarry to pass the promotions board.
Mr Marston said Chief Supt Ball should not have typed the name into the report but said it did not cast doubt on her integrity or honesty.
He had given her informal advice, saying: “I don’t think you handled that quite as you should have done and there are issues in how you manage this in the future.” She accepted this.
Insp McGarry was allowed to go before another promotions board without reapplying.
When he failed again, it was decided to repost him as he was not up to the role of chief inspector. Mr Marston said it would have been difficult for Insp McGarry to remain in the division having made a complaint against the divisional commander that was not substantiated — though the decision to move him had already been made.
He told Insp McGarry that while he understood his frustrations, he thought the decision to take action was inappropriate, misconceived and without grounds.
Transferring him was in his favour as he was returning to his substantive role of Inspector and could have another crack at the promotions board.
Spencer Keen, representing GMP, argued there was no evidence that Insp McGarry had been treated unfavourably and that the allegations of dishonesty and a lack of integrity had no foundation.
