WMP’s operation in Liverpool was based at Smithdown Lane Police Station. This was the headquarters of Merseyside Police Traffic Division. On 30 April 1989, in the early stages of evidence gathering, there were at least 120 WMP officers based in Liverpool. Broadly, this divided into six serials, each consisting of an inspector, two sergeants and up to 20 PCs. Superintendent David Thursfield (Supt Thursfield) was the head of the Liverpool operation.
During the initial phase of about three weeks, the WMP officers were, in general, working 12-hour shifts for six and sometimes seven days a week to take accounts from as many witnesses as possible. In total, WMP recorded 3,885 questionnaires from Liverpool supporters and 151 questionnaires from coach company owners or drivers who had taken supporters to the game. The majority of these were completed before 30 May.
Once the Taylor Inquiry hearings began, the operation in Liverpool was scaled back; by 4 June 1989, there were just 33 WMP officers still in Merseyside.
There is no single document setting out how WMP should, or did, gather information from Liverpool supporters. However, the accounts of the officers involved are reasonably consistent in describing the basic process, which is summarised below.
Supporters contacted WMP by phoning the dedicated freephone number for the IIC. WMP call handlers used a short questionnaire to gather initial information, including the caller’s name, contact details and where they were on the day of the game. These were reviewed in the WMP MIR, and actions were raised for officers based in the Liverpool office to go and interview the supporters.
Officers in the Liverpool office worked in pairs to conduct face-to-face interviews, using the standard questionnaire. In most cases, the officers telephoned the supporters in advance and arranged a time to interview them. Some supporters who responded to the witness appeal indicated that WMP had turned up at their door without prior arrangement. WMP officers acknowledged in interviews with the IOPC that this had happened on occasion; however, they suggested that this was when they had not been able to contact the witness in advance.
The officers were not required to inform witnesses that they were completing a questionnaire and, in general, it appears that they did not. Officers also did not necessarily ask each question in turn; sometimes supporters gave answers to one question which meant a later one was not necessary or appropriate.
If a witness indicated that they had gone to the match with someone who had died, or they had been involved in trying to rescue or resuscitate other supporters, the WMP officers took a CJA statement. They also took statements in some other cases, where they deemed it relevant or were instructed to do so.
All questionnaires and statements were submitted to the MIR. They were read first by more senior officers so that any immediate actions could be raised. The documents were subsequently typed up and recorded on the HOLMES database.
Further interviews were conducted if necessary to confirm some details or request extra information, or to take a CJA statement. It appears that where this happened, it was not necessarily the same officers who returned; if the witness had made a complaint or was being visited again in relation to a complaint from another witness, more senior officers were often tasked to make these additional visits.
The evidence available to the IOPC suggests a similar process was used for questionnaires of Nottingham Forest supporters, though only 269 of these were completed.
Based on documentary evidence from the time and the statements of former WMP officers to the IOPC, it is apparent that WMP initially underestimated the scale and complexity of the task. Though some interviews were conducted by detectives and more experienced officers (including inspectors), the majority were conducted by comparatively junior officers. They were required to interview deeply traumatised individuals about their experiences very soon after the traumatic event. Many of these junior officers had no specialist training in interviewing vulnerable people and received only limited briefings.
In statements to the IOPC, former WMP officers noted that, unsurprisingly, some supporters did get upset or angry, particularly at certain questions. Officers told the IOPC of the approaches they had taken to minimise the distress. For example, some sought first to let the interviewee simply give their account, unprompted; the officers would note down details at relevant points on the questionnaire, then ask questions to fill in any gaps. Others chose to adhere to the questionnaire as closely as possible and then use the more open questions at the end to let supporters speak more freely and provide their own recollections.
One consequence of these difficulties was that interviews would typically last longer than had been assumed in WMP’s initial calculations. Officers recalled spending several hours in some households, particularly where more than one member of the household had been at the game.
Numerous supporters also described the long process; some indicated that they had found the WMP officers to be sympathetic. This was reflected in the responses to the witness appeal, where more than 800 witnesses answered the question whether they believed the account they gave to WMP adequately reflected their experiences on the day of the disaster with a “yes”.
However, 490 answered this question “no”. Following further contact with these witnesses, the IOPC recorded complaints in relation to various issues.
36 witnesses stated the officers did not accurately or adequately record their responses.
18 witnesses complained about the overall attitude of officers.
15 witnesses complained that officers focused excessively on supporters’ alcohol consumption.
10 witnesses stated that when they tried to make complaints about the actions of SYP officers, these complaints were not recorded or subsequently investigated.
7 complaints referred to WMP officers interviewing witnesses under the age of 18 without an adult being present.
2 complaints related to the fact that, after the complainant had called the IIC, WMP did not follow up their initial information in any way.
Several of the complaints related to more than one issue and some were subsequently discontinued at supporters’ request.
As part of its investigation, the IOPC researched each pair of officers who took statements and questionnaires from witnesses to explore whether any were subject to higher numbers of complaints. There were no officers that were subject to particularly high numbers of complaints, which indicates there was no specific pattern of behaviour.
