Bravery commendation officer says bite attack not a `cock and bulldog` story
A police officer once commended for disarming a knife-wielding thug insisted he did not act dishonestly by changing a doctors note to back up claims he was attacked by a bulldog.
Jun 8, 2016
By Nick Hudson
A police officer once commended for disarming a knife-wielding thug insisted he did not act dishonestly by changing a doctors note to back up claims he was attacked by a bulldog.
Sergeant James Adams had no reason to make the alterations, which led to a trial being abandoned and calls for an inquiry from a judge.
His denial came at a Merseyside Police misconduct hearing as he was accused of concocting a story to cover his tracks after panicking when he realised the official letter did not fit his story.
Sgt Adams needed hospital treatment after he was bitten by a bulldog during a police operation in March 2014.
The officer the subject of a bravery commendation told the Wavertree panel he was bitten after the dogs owner unleashed the animal on him in a deliberate attack.
But the doctors note describing his treatment suggested the injury had been an accident.
When prosecutors examined the note ahead of a trial against the dog owners they realised someone had struck out the word accidentally and scrawled initials next to the mark.
Representatives for the forces Professional Standards Department accuse the officer of making the change.
He denies that claim, insisting he did not even read the note until concerns over its contents were raised.
Asked if he had told the doctor who treated him, Dr Valluru, that the dog bite had been accidental, he said: I told Dr Valluru exactly what I told the paramedics and all of the other people who treated me that a huge dog was set upon me as I attempted to get into a house.
He added: I did not, and do not know when the line was placed through accidentally and by whom. Sgt Adams left Aintree hospital with the note just before 6pm on March 31, 2014.
The same note was scanned into police systems with the changes around 20 minutes later.
Dr Valluru told the panel he did not make the change and would have simply printed a new note out if any issue had been raised by Sgt Adams.
Cross-examining the accused officer, John Corless, representing Merseyside Police, claimed: You had every reason to amend the letter to reflect the actual position as you saw it.
Sgt Adams, who joined the force in 2003, responded by saying absolutely not.
Mr Corless continued: [After the change had been highlighted and an inquiry launched by the Recorder of Liverpool] You panicked and instead of saying I did it, I shouldnt have done it, I hold my hands up you concocted this whole notion there is some degree of possibility someone other than you had amended this letter.
Sgt Adams, who said he cannot recall being given the letter or his journey back to the station, denied this claim.
The three-person panel overseeing the hearing is chaired by independent legal expert Nicholas Walker.
The hearing continues.