Though the IOPC had access to thousands of archive documents relating to the investigations, there was comparatively little evidence within these documents about how WMP conducted its investigations. To address this, in September 2013, the IOPC launched a witness appeal, inviting people who had any contact with WMP during its initial investigation to contact the IOPC and share their accounts and experiences. This became the largest witness appeal the IOPC had ever conducted. In total, 1,713 individuals responded, of whom 1,325 said they had some dealings with WMP. Many of those who responded had never previously given an account to any inquiry or investigation.
Every respondent who had contact with WMP was asked if they believed the account they gave to WMP adequately reflected their experiences on the day of the disaster. While over 800 respondents said it did, 490 answered this question “no”. These individuals were then asked why: a range of reasons were given, with some giving more than one reason.
Those who said “no” were contacted again by IOPC investigators who asked for more information about the reasons for their dissatisfaction. Before contacting them, the IOPC investigators examined archived material and the WMP HOLMES databases to retrieve any statement or questionnaire registered by WMP in the respondent’s name. Investigators then sent the respondent a copy of these documents or, where the documents had already been published on the HIP website, directed them to the relevant pages.
In many cases, the dissatisfaction expressed specifically related to the fact that the respondent recalled being interviewed by WMP but had not been able to find any documentation related to them. One reason for this was that, in many cases, the HIP redacted the names of witnesses before publishing the documents. Once they had confirmed that there were documents that related to them, many of these witnesses informed the IOPC that they had no further issues.
However, over a quarter of those who had engaged with WMP expressed concerns about the behaviour and manner of the officers who interviewed them. Other common concerns raised by respondents were that WMP officers:
interviewed witnesses, but did not take a formal statement from them
did not record witnesses’ evidence accurately
appeared uninterested in what the witness had to say
focused excessively on alcohol consumption
interviewed witnesses under the age of 18 without an adult being present
Arising from these concerns, the IOPC received 66 formal complaints relating to these issues. This meant that WMP’s approach to collecting evidence from supporters for the Taylor Inquiry was the most common source of complaints related to the Hillsborough disaster.
