The decision to test blood alcohol levels of all of those who died

The post-mortem examinations of 94 of those who died in the Hillsborough disaster began at around 9am on Sunday 16 April 1989. They were completed the following day.
Dr Popper had made initial arrangements for the post-mortems on the Saturday evening. At some point before they began, he determined that full forensic post-mortems should be conducted in all cases. That included the testing of blood alcohol in all cases, including on those aged under 18.
In the preliminary proceedings to the individual inquests on 18 April 1990, Dr Popper explained that this testing had been done at his direction. He acknowledged that blood alcohol testing was not conducted as a part of every inquest, but commented it is part of “a great number of cases”.
He said he made the decision to authorise the testing because alcohol levels may have been relevant to understanding how people died. He added that he made the decision without knowing the ages of all those who had died and determined that it should be a standard part of all of the post-mortems.
Nothing he said in the preliminary proceedings indicated that any police officer—or indeed any other individual—influenced the decision.
The IOPC sought to re-examine the decision process, reviewing documentation and taking statements from Dr Popper, six of the pathologists who conducted the post-mortems (the other four had died) and various other members of Dr Popper’s team.
Dr Popper reiterated to the IOPC that the decision had been his, and that no police officer had influenced it. He suggested that the question of whether to test blood alcohol had probably been discussed in his initial meetings with pathologists and the deputy coroner, but he couldn’t specifically recall this. He said: “It might have been that one of the pathologists said that we ought to do blood alcohol tests, or I may have spontaneously thought of it myself.”
None of those interviewed by the IOPC who were present in these initial meetings recalled there being any discussion regarding blood alcohol testing—nor of supporter behaviour or alcohol consumption.
Dr Popper also acknowledged that he was aware, from an early stage, of the suggestion that alcohol could have been a factor in the disaster but could not remember how he knew this or whether anyone said anything to him. He also stated that he thought what he had heard about alcohol was “unlikely not to have had an influence” on his decision.
Though he knew that some families were upset by it, he felt it had been the right decision, as doing it meant they had been able to answer the question as to whether alcohol had been a factor in the deaths; the testing provided evidence that it had not been.
In his statement, Dr Popper described the overall sequence of events between when he received the initial call from the police to advise him of the disaster and the start of the post-mortems. This provided an insight into where he went and who he might have spoken to.
He remembered speaking in depth to only one police officer before the post-mortems began. This was D Ch Supt Addis, with whom he discussed the formal identification process and arrangements for transporting those who had died from hospitals to the gymnasium, then on to the MLC.
At least four SYP officers mentioned seeing Dr Popper in the gymnasium. However, none of these officers has at any time mentioned speaking to him at this point.
Dr Popper stated to the IOPC that he had “no recollection of any pressure from the police” in relation to the question of whether blood alcohol testing should be conducted. He added: “I’m as confident as I can be at the present time that I was not put under any pressure to do it.”
No one else interviewed by the IOPC suggested there had been any discussion with police officers about blood alcohol testing. The deputy coroner recalled being present when Dr Popper spoke to some police officers, including CC Wright, but said there was no discussion whatsoever about alcohol or the behaviour of supporters.
Regardless of how the decision was reached, Dr Popper stated to the IOPC: “I do not recall anybody questioned or disagreed with the decision to do the blood alcohol tests.”
This was supported by the statements from the pathologists who, with one exception, felt it had been an appropriate decision in the circumstances. Several of them suggested they would have been more surprised if they had not been instructed to test blood alcohol levels.
The only pathologist who disagreed said that left to his own devices, he would not have tested blood alcohol levels as he didn’t smell any alcohol in the post-mortems that he did. He arrived during the afternoon of 16 April, when the post-mortems were underway, and understood it was a definite instruction.
He also addressed the question of taking blood alcohol levels from those under the age of 18, commenting: “There was no separate discussion about the decision to take blood alcohol levels from those under the age of 18. One of the patients I examined was 14 years old and I didn’t think it was all that appropriate really, I felt slightly uncomfortable doing it.”
Again, this was a different view from the others, who agreed that having decided to test blood alcohol levels of all those who died, there was no need for a separate policy for under 18s.
While there was a difference of opinion on the appropriateness of testing, there was total agreement on the key issue for the IOPC’s investigation: all of the pathologists who provided statements were unaware of any police influence on the decision to test blood alcohol.
D Ch Supt Addis was asked what he recalled of his contact with Dr Popper. He said: “I did not have any conversation with him regarding post-mortems and I had nothing to do with post-mortems whatsoever.” He added: “I had no knowledge of why blood samples was [sic] taken from the deceased and checks on alcohol levels, I wasn’t privy to any discussions regarding this.”
Professor Jack Crane was an experienced pathologist who served as an advisor to the Goldring Inquests on pathological issues. After these ended, the IOPC asked him for an expert opinion on the decision to test blood alcohol levels. He provided a written report, in which he said that “In the circumstances of Hillsborough it seems quite reasonable for BAA [blood alcohol analysis] to be carried out on the majority of victims since there was at least a theoretical possibility that alcohol intoxication could have played a part in the incident.”
He echoed Dr Popper’s view that blood alcohol testing had ultimately proved valuable as it meant “the rumour that drunken fans contributed to the disaster could be, and indeed was, able to be refuted”. However, he said that conducting blood alcohol testing on the children who had died was “disproportionate and inappropriate”.