While the testing of blood alcohol levels of those who died in the disaster had been a contentious subject since the Popper Inquests, the testing of blood alcohol levels of survivors only became public knowledge through two documents disclosed to the HIP.
The first was a note from Dr Forrest, the same toxicologist who carried out the blood alcohol testing on the majority of those who died in the disaster, to Mr Alan Crosby, A&E Consultant at the Royal Hallamshire Hospital, on the afternoon of the disaster. The document listed 11 names and/or hospital identification numbers of survivors, a date and time, and their blood alcohol levels. For 9 of the 11 individuals listed, no alcohol was detected.
The second was a document which, under the heading “Alcohol”, recorded the number of those who died that had blood alcohol levels over 80mg/100ml (the legal alcohol limit for driving in England, Wales and Northern Ireland) then included the note: “few of those admitted had appreciable levels”.
The IOPC used these documents as the basis to investigate why blood alcohol had been tested in these cases, and to establish if any other injured patients had been tested.
One of the first things the IOPC established in relation to the first document was that although there were 11 names or identification numbers on the list, it referred to only ten individuals: one was listed twice.
There was no record of this blood alcohol testing in the medical notes of eight of the ten survivors. The reasons for treatment did not suggest any correlation between those who were tested and the injuries they had or treatment they required: the list of those tested included individuals who had only minor injuries as well as some with more serious injuries.
IOPC investigators sought to contact each of the ten individuals listed on the note, or their families, to find out whether they knew anything about the testing. Where individuals gave consent, investigators reviewed the respective medical records to ascertain whether there was any common pattern or clinical reason (such as common pre-existing medical conditions) behind their blood alcohol level being tested.
None was found. Of the ten individuals, four were conscious on arrival; five were unconscious and one semi-conscious. Seven were admitted to intensive care.
Five of the patients agreed to talk to the IOPC. None of those interviewed recalled having their blood taken while in hospital. None thought that having a blood sample taken was an unreasonable step in their treatment, nor did they think they would have objected to it or questioned it at the time. However, none remembered being asked whether they were willing to have their blood taken for alcohol testing or being told that their blood alcohol level would be tested.
The IOPC followed a range of routes to establish whether blood alcohol testing had been carried out on any other injured patients. No evidence was found to suggest it had been.
IOPC investigators interviewed Dr Forrest and Mr Crosby to ask what they remembered of the testing and whether there had been any police influence on the decision to carry out tests.
Dr Forrest said he was aware, when he did it, that he “was carrying out the tests on people who had been injured at Hillsborough.” He said that the tests were authorised by a consultant, and he had no reservations about doing them. He suggested that the consultant may have been intending to write a report or scientific paper on the disaster.
Mr Crosby, who authorised the tests told the IOPC he couldn’t remember asking for them but agreed that the request had come from him. He also accepted Dr Forrest’s suggestion that it was possible he was considering writing a paper. However, he stated: “there would have been an initial clinical reason” for taking blood samples.
Crucially for the IOPC investigation, Mr Crosby stated strongly that he had not been asked by police officers to conduct blood alcohol testing and that “A suggestion like that from a police officer would not have gone down too well.”
