I HAVE had the pleasure of Sir Norman Bettison’s company just the once.

It was back in 2007 when he was the newly-installed Chief Constable of West Yorkshire and I was a cub reporter, considerably more fresh-faced than the gnarly old columnist who looks out at you from the top of this page.

The occasion of our one and only meeting has been lost in the fog of my memory. All I remember is that it was some conference or other at Huddersfield Town Hall at which the Examiner had been granted a few minutes of face-time with the top cop.

Only two things stick in my mind about Sir Norman from our brief chat in the corridor outside the council chamber. The first is how tall he was, towering over me despite the fact I’m 6ft 1ins. The second is that he played a straight bat.

At one point in our short interview he mentioned how important it was for the police force to have the trust of the people it serves.

Like any cheeky reporter I saw my chance, and asked him if he thought his friends in the Met were helping him build public confidence.

This was at the time when the news was full of revelations about the Forest Gate raid, an incident the previous year during which police had shot a suspect in a way which the London force struggled to explain – despite having several tries at it.

Sir Norman hadn’t got to the top by biting on questions like that, so he batted away my enquiry with some platitudes rather than addressing the point.

Back in 2007 he seemed to me to be the epitome of the senior policeman, the kind of high achiever who got where he was in part because he knew when to shut his mouth.

It’s ironic that, years later, Sir Norman has become the most controversial ex-cop in the country.

Last week the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) reported that the former chief constable would have a case to answer for his role in the Hillsborough inquiry – were it not for the fact he resigned last year.

The watchdog said Sir Norman should be held to account over accusations he leaned on West Yorkshire Police Authority as it considered whether to refer him to the IPCC over his role in the aftermath of the tragedy.

If proven, the allegation could have led to dismissal for gross misconduct.

But even this is small beer compared with the main Hillsborough accusation against Sir Norman.

Along with other senior South Yorkshire officers of the day, he is alleged to have been involved in a black propaganda campaign to smear innocent Liverpool fans for the 1989 tragedy which took 96 lives.

It is this, the allegation that he helped besmirch the names of those who died at Hillsborough, which is by far the more serious claim.

Last week’s ruling from the IPCC, that it is powerless to deal with Sir Norman because he has left the force, is not encouraging.

But former Huddersfield police officer Bill Armer noted in Monday’s Examiner letters page that there may be another way to hold him to account.

The Deighton man raises the possibility that, despite last week’s decision, Sir Norman could still be charged under criminal law with misconduct in public office.

Obviously it would be damaging for West Yorkshire Police if the force’s former chief constable were to find himself in the dock. But in the long term it could actually be good for the police both here and elsewhere.

Revelations in the last year about Hillsborough, Orgreave and tabloid payments have exposed corruption within forces across the country.

There are only two ways to tackle this problem – and I would suggest that one of these would not be welcomed by the majority of officers who serve with integrity.

The first solution is to order in another batch of red tape and to tie it around every officer’s hands to make it harder for them to take bribes or alter witness statements.

The second way of dealing with the problem is simpler and has the advantage that it doesn’t stop innocent officers from doing their job.

It is simply, as Mr Armer suggests, to prosecute.

For too long officers accused of wrongdoing have appeared to be above the law, able to retire on cushy pensions rather than answer in court.

Generally speaking, what a wonderful deterrent effect it would have if every potentially bent copper in the country could see a senior ex-colleague – maybe even a former chief constable – in the dock for something he did while in uniform.

More than anything else, this would concentrate their minds as they weighed up accepting that brown paper envelope or taking the Tipp-Ex to a witness statement.

In the unlikely event that Sir Norman and I ever meet again, I’ll ask him what he thinks of that idea. Not that I’ll be expecting an answer.