Plebgate - the Police, the Minister and Commons Committees

By Vincent Chow, L6

In early September 2012, Andrew Mitchell, a Tory MP was appointed Conservative Chief Whip in the House of Commons. His political career was reaching new heights: he was now part of the Cabinet, as was widely regarded as a prominent figure of the Conservative Party as well as UK Politics as a whole.

However, he resigned from his cabinet position a month later.

Why?

Well, according to Metropolitan police incident logs, Mitchell had apparently verbally abused three police officers at the gate of Downing Street after they had told him to use the pedestrian gate instead of the main gate to leave.

One can imagine the media frenzy that followed. The Sun demanded an immediate resignation, labelling Mitchell a “millionaire minister with no respect for police officers”. Calls for his resignation came from all corners of society. Despite his vehement denials, especially that he did not use the word “pleb”, Mitchell succumbed to the immense pressure put on him and resigned.

But in December, CCTV footage emerged of the incident. The footage seemed to call into question all accounts of what happened that night, especially the police’s.

Mitchell seemed to be justified. The Metropolitan Police immediately began an investigation into the matter, named Operation Alice.

However, the resultant report was non-conclusive and did not accuse the police officers of lying. Accusations of senior police interference in the investigation as well as a police cover up of the truth were being thrown around.

The Commons Home Affairs Committee interrogated the three involved police officers, where they stood by their account of events. Last week, the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC), announced that they would hold a new inquiry into the matter. It’s been over a year since that September night and yet no one has been vindicated.

As the investigation is still ongoing, I can’t criticise Mitchell or blame the police. However, I can’t help but think about what the repercussions are if the IPCC report does conclude that the police were lying and that they were framing a Cabinet member.

Trust in the police has not been especially high in recent times. Many social commentators have noted that the relationship between the police and the public has deteriorated massively. The recently confirmed Hillsborough cover-up; the 20th anniversary of Stephen Lawrence’s death; the revelation that the police are leaking information to the media; the integrity of the police and the authorities seems to be what’s at stake here.

If the IPCC delivers a guilty verdict for the police, there will undoubtedly be resignations and dismissals. But more significantly, public trust in the police and the authorities will decline to a new low, increasing tensions between the public and the police, rendering future enforcement more difficult.  

This is useful for G & P students contemplating the power of Parliamentary Committees. Although the details of the case continue to get murky, it is striking that a member of the Police recently apologised to a House of Commons Committee for not telling the whole truth in a previous encounter. Parliamentary Committees have very little power, except the power to publicise an issue. In this case, the apology was accepted.

The Wikipedia article about Plebgate can be found here.