There is some evidence to indicate that WMP—and specifically ACC Jones—may also have contributed to a report submitted by SYP to the Taylor Inquiry. This report was produced on the instruction of Ch Supt Wain and compiled by Detective Inspector Alan King of SYP (DI King) and is informally known as the King report. Its aim was to examine and provide evidence of a so-called ‘conspiracy theory’, apparently circulating within SYP, that large numbers of Liverpool supporters without tickets would intentionally congregate outside a ground then collectively force their way in. The report primarily consisted of information from a number of police forces about the behaviour of Liverpool supporters at matches in their area in the preceding seasons. Despite considering several matches at different grounds, it provided little evidence to support the conspiracy theory.
Paragraph 4.2 of the King report included a comment that appeared to be based on input from WMP. This read: “Whilst the evidence does not have any bearing on the match played between Liverpool and Nottingham Forest at Hillsborough, or the fans who attended the match, the Everton supporters behaviour at Villa Park shows a remarkable coincidence with the Liverpool supporters at Hillsborough which may indicate some Liverpool characteristic.”
This referred to the other 1989 FA Cup Semi-Final, involving Everton (a club based in the city of Liverpool) and Norwich City, which had taken place at Villa Park—a large stadium in Birmingham—on the same day as the disaster. WMP had been the force responsible for policing the match and ACC Jones had been on duty.
SYP submitted the King report to the Taylor Inquiry on 22 June, a few days before the end of the Inquiry hearings.
On 9 June, almost a fortnight before DI King’s report was submitted to the Taylor Inquiry, ACC Jones had written to Peter Whitehurst at the Treasury Solicitor’s Department about the “behaviour of Everton supporters at the semi-final on 15 April 1989”. In the letter, ACC Jones referred Mr Whitehurst to a previous conversation between them in which he had mentioned he had been at this other semi-final. He continued: “I expressed my concern about aspects of that event which reflected similar behaviour to the Liverpool supporters at Hillsborough.”
ACC Jones wrote that, following this conversation with Mr Whitehurst, he had asked senior officers who had been on duty at the Everton v Norwich City game to provide him with statements. He enclosed three statements with the letter, which ACC Jones concluded: “I would only add that, in my opinion, I had not previously experienced dealing with supporters in such great number who had consumed so much alcohol. Consequently the accounts that I have read on Liverpool supporters behaviour at Hillsborough show some remarkable coincidences which may indicate some Liverpool characteristic.”
Aside from questions about the accuracy of such a comparison, this appears a highly inappropriate comment for the officer in charge of evidence gathering to make. It appears to suggest the actions of a small number of football supporters were representative of the alleged behaviour and character of a city of almost half a million people. It further could be taken to imply that ACC Jones had a fixed mindset or preconceptions about the behaviour of people from the city, while investigating a disaster involving those same people.
The similarity between the wording of ACC Jones’s letter and DI King’s report is striking—and indeed a copy of the letter was found in a bundle of papers related to the King report. This raised the possibility that ACC Jones had provided his input directly to DI King; that a colleague at WMP had done so; or, that Mr Whitehurst had done so.
There is no evidence to suggest that, as part of his research in compiling the report, DI King contacted the Treasury Solicitor’s Department. However, he did contact all police forces. It therefore seems most likely that the letter was provided to DI King by WMP.
If ACC Jones himself had submitted a letter to an officer compiling a report in defence of the very force ACC Jones was investigating, this could be construed as a conflict of interest. When interviewing ACC Jones under caution, the IOPC showed him a copy of the letter he had sent to Mr Whitehurst and asked him to comment on it. ACC Jones responded: “I have no independent recollection of writing this letter twenty-five years ago however I accept writing it. I had not recalled using the term Liverpool characteristic before.”
He was then asked about it at the Goldring Inquests and rejected the suggestion that this was an example of a lack of independence and impartiality from WMP.
