Supporters complained that some WMP officers were rude or intimidating, or that they did not seem interested in what they had to say. For example, one witness told the IOPC: “One officer sat down and the other stood up in front of me, with his hands in his pockets for the whole time he was in my house.”
In May 1989, WMP also received a complaint about the manner of its officers in Sheffield. A young man, who was a student in the city and had been at the match, responded to the witness appeal and agreed to go to a police station and provide a statement. However, when he was interviewed, he was upset by the manner of the questioning and what he felt were unfair allegations.
He detailed his experiences in a letter to his mother. These included one of the officers adopting an aggressive manner and appearing not to believe his account, to the extent of expressing doubt that he had even been at the game, because he had no injuries.
The man’s mother showed the letter to his godfather, who was a former detective chief superintendent. The godfather then wrote to WMP to complain. This was not recorded as a formal complaint, but ACC Jones instructed D Ch Supt Foster to “Initiate a follow-up to smooth troubled waters.” [Emphasis in original.] The officers who had conducted the interview were contacted and responded that they thought the young man’s evidence had been inconsistent and that he was ‘anti-police’.
On 19 June 1989, D Ch Supt Foster wrote back to the man’s godfather on behalf of WMP and told him that he had spoken with the two officers in question. He further explained that the WMP team as a whole had dealt with approximately 4,000 supporters as part of their enquiries, and that this was the only incident where someone had raised concerns. While there was in fact some evidence of other supporters expressing concerns about WMP’s approach, very few raised such concerns to WMP at the time.
The man complained to the IOPC about the WMP officers who had interviewed him. Having reviewed the evidence, the IOPC upheld his complaint that WMP had recorded his comments inaccurately and incompletely, with several material errors in the accounts they drafted. The IOPC also upheld, in relation to one of the two officers, the man’s complaint that during the interview process, he was accused of lying and was intimidated and threatened with charges of wasting police time.
Complaints about specific interactions between WMP officers and individual witnesses are inherently difficult to investigate. The interviews were not audio- or video-recorded, so the only documentary evidence from the time is the questionnaires or statements themselves. The IOPC has sought to contact the officers involved; not all have agreed to speak to investigators, as is their right, but those who have replied denied behaving inappropriately.
The IOPC has also looked at the evidence of the wider work undertaken by each pair of officers complained about. In all of the cases, there was no documentary evidence or witness evidence to suggest that these officers were repeatedly or consistently rude, intimidating or biased.
It is apparent that some interviews ended acrimoniously or abruptly, where witnesses were upset or angered by the questions, or simply by the emotional trauma of recalling the events. While clearly this is regrettable, it is also not surprising that this happened on occasion, given the number of interviews conducted by WMP and the nature of the matters under investigation.
This does not alter the fact that some supporters were sufficiently upset or shocked by WMP’s behaviour that they wished to complain.
These issues were undoubtedly of deep significance to those affected. In some cases, the manner of evidence collection added to the trauma of being present on the day; for others, it damaged trust in the integrity of the investigation into the disaster.
However, the broader picture demonstrates that these issues were experienced on an individual level rather than a systemic one. Further, the overall body of evidence does not support the allegation that WMP deliberately lost, inaccurately recorded, amended or mishandled witness accounts.
