Submit a complaint

Seeking to establish who conducted the PNC checks and why

  1. The IOPC sought to establish who carried out the checks, why, and how the information had been given to the solicitor. Investigators made several attempts to interview the solicitor, who had indicated he wanted to speak to the IOPC. However, he was in poor health and unable to answer questions. Members of his family, who had worked with him, and other former colleagues spoke to the IOPC and confirmed they had no knowledge of how he had obtained this information. They allowed the IOPC to take further documents from the solicitor’s home to review, but these contained no further references to the PNC checks.
     
  2. Supt Marshall stated he had no knowledge of, or involvement in, any PNC checks being carried out in relation to the Hillsborough disaster. Investigators did not find any information to suggest otherwise. 
     
  3. Investigators also compared handwriting on the documents to a sample of Supt Marshall’s handwriting. The visual dissimilarities between the two were so apparent to the naked eye that no further comparative analysis was deemed necessary. Investigators asked the solicitor’s family if they recognised the handwriting as his. They all agreed it was not.
     
  4. The format of the printouts showed that they were from the original PNC rather than from PNC2, which became available to police forces in 1991. This narrowed the time window; however, it also meant that there were no records to show who had conducted the search or produced the printouts. Under PNC2 and current procedure, the name of the officer who conducts a check is automatically recorded and stored.
     
  5. IOPC investigators spoke to two former PNC operators at SYP to understand how the PNC was used by the force in 1989 and up to the launch of PNC2. The operators explained that PNC checks were typically conducted by trained staff at a dedicated terminal. As far as they could remember, in 1989 SYP had two PNC terminals in the CRO and an additional two in the Force Control Room. To request a check, officers in the field would call in via radio or telephone. They would have to give their name and collar number, plus the name and date of birth of the subject of the check. The information they requested was recorded on paper logs, along with the date and time the check was requested. The paper logs were kept for 12 months before they were destroyed. In line with this policy, the IOPC has not found any paper logs from the time.
     
  6. The IOPC asked SYP officers interviewed if they had any recollection of PNC checks being carried out after the disaster. The only officers who referred to anything of this sort were some of those who had been involved at either the gymnasium or at the MLC in documenting the details of each of those who died in the disaster. They noted that the forms they completed included a tick-box referring to PNC checks. This was not ticked on any of the forms, supporting the accounts of the officers that they had not had access to the PNC when they were conducting this task.
     
  7. The IOPC checked all the HOLMES databases used by SYP and WMP in relation to the disaster. There was no record in any of them of an instruction to conduct PNC checks.
     
  8. This meant that the IOPC had no further avenues available to establish who conducted the checks or why, or who had provided the solicitor with the information.