"Plebgate" officers face fresh investigation Shadow on the force: the run of scandals, including that involving Andrew Mitchell has revived interest in fundamental reform The police watchdog has announced that it will reopen an investigation into three senior officers involved in the "plebgate row." Inspector Ken MacKaill, Detective Sergeant Stuart Hinton and Sergeant Chris Jones had been told they would face no action for misconduct over press statements they made after a meeting with Andrew Mitchell, the Tory former chief whip who quit after an altercation with officers in Downing Street last year. However, the Independent Police Complaints Commission has now said it will hold its own investigation after finding "procedural irregularities" in the way an earlier probe was dealt with. Mr Jones and Mr Hinton have been also called to appear again before MPs on Tuesday, after being accused of giving "misleading"" answers when they gave evidence to the home affairs select committee on October 23. The three officers are all members of the Police Federation, which represents police officers and has been at loggerheads with the government over reforms and budget cuts. The select committee said in a report published on Sunday that it found the three officers" testimony "misleading, possibly deliberately so, and lacking in credibility." It said it was recalling two of the officials to apologise and correct their testimony. "The narrative of what we have seen could rival any great work of fiction," the committee's chairman, Keith Vaz, said in a statement. At every point and at every level, instead of being transparent, we have uncovered a process that obstructs the truth. If this can happen to a cabinet minister, what hope is there for anyone else? The three men were originally told that they would face no disciplinary action after senior officers disagreed with Chief Inspector Jerry Reakes-Williams, who found they had a case to answer for misconduct. But IPCC deputy chairwoman, Deborah Glass, said that evidence given on October 23 revealed "irregularities between the production of the draft and final reports" on their conduct. On August 12, 2013, a final report was provided to the IPCC. It contained a single set of conclusions to the effect that no case to answer for misconduct was made out against any of the three officers under investigation. However, it is clear from CI Reakes-Williams's evidence to the home affairs select committee that this conclusion did not reflect his opinion. His opinion was (and remains) that a case to answer for misconduct was made out. However, he mistakenly believed that his report should reflect the view of the appropriate authorities - the senior officers in each of the forces involved. The appropriate authorities are the final decision-making bodies, and they are entitled to reach a different decision to the conclusions of the investigator. However, this is an entirely separate process. The procedure described above has conflated the two. Mr Mitchell had called a meeting with them to apologise for his altercation with an officer who had prevented him leaving through the main Downing Street gate on his bicycle. But the Police Federation representatives spent most of it debating whether the former chief whip used the word "pleb" as an insult against the officer. When Mr Mitchell denied using the word, the officers said they would have to report the issue as the Downing Street officer may have lied in formal notes, something they said would be a common law offence. However, when they emerged from the meeting they instead called Mr Mitchell's integrity into question and demanded he should be sacked from his cabinet role. He quit days later.