How WMP responded to being told accounts were being amended

It appears that almost as soon as SYP decided to have the accounts reviewed before submitting them to the Taylor Inquiry, WMP was made aware of this change in process. On 9 May, the same day that Ch Supt Denton sent the first batch of SYP accounts to Mr Metcalf at Hammond Suddards, ACC Jones recorded in his policy book a discussion with Mr Brummell from the Taylor Inquiry team expressing concern that they would not receive accounts until 11 May at the earliest.
Though ACC Jones did not record any explanation as to why submissions would not be provided before 11 May, the policy note included an agreement “that Mr Brummell would speak to South Yorkshire Police’s solicitors and indicate the importance of a balanced account.” This indicates that both WMP and the Taylor Inquiry team appeared to attribute the delay to the involvement of SYP’s solicitors, and that they had concerns about potential imbalance in the accounts as a result. However, there is no evidence of any action from WMP to intervene in this process, which—as detailed in chapter 9—there was no bar to SYP following.
On 23 May, DCI Ross sent a memo to ACC Jones, describing a telephone call he had received from an SYP officer who was upset about his account being amended in a way the officer felt was significant. According to the memo, DCI Ross explained to the caller that this was an “accepted procedure” that the Taylor Inquiry team was aware of. He added that “statements were being examined by South Yorkshire Police Legal Department in an attempt to remove from the recollections any comments which were made with full emotion following the incident and which were or could be considered embarrassing or detrimental to the South Yorkshire Police in general and individual officers in particular.” The memo to ACC Jones did not provide further details of what the significant changes were, and there is no evidence to show that DCI Ross asked for details.
This explanation—and in particular the reference to comments which “could be considered embarrassing or detrimental to the South Yorkshire Police”—suggested that WMP understood that the review process involved more than simply removing inadmissible evidence, as SYP had by this stage claimed was the purpose of the legal review.
DCI Ross concluded his note by saying he had advised the caller to take the matter up with his senior officers within SYP. The IOPC has found no evidence to suggest that WMP offered any further support to the caller.
In a statement to the IOPC, DCI Ross commented: “they may have been editing hearsay and opinion which would not cause me concern as I believed that we would need to obtain CJA statements in the event of any legal proceedings.”
ACC Jones informed the Taylor Inquiry team of the telephone call and then separately wrote to CC Wright about it. The letter began: “I thought I would advise you discreetly that we have had two approaches from separate sources suggesting that certain omissions have been made from officers’ recollections.” The first approach was the call received by DCI Ross and the second approach was a call from a Sheffield Star journalist “who said a man purporting to be the brother of a South Yorkshire Police Officer had also had his recollection subjected to some editing.”
ACC Jones did not ask CC Wright whether he was aware accounts were being amended to this extent, or to ensure that no more material changes were made.
This letter was sent to CC Wright the day after the Taylor Inquiry team had expressed concerns to ACC Jones about the speed at which SYP officer recollections were being provided to them. However, ACC Jones did not ask CC Wright about the delay, or whether the review process was part of the reason for it.
Neither WMP nor the Taylor Inquiry team asked for the review process to be changed or stopped, even when after this there were further delays in SYP providing accounts. That was despite the fact that the Taylor Inquiry team did not believe the review process was necessary.
As part of the Stuart-Smith Scrutiny, D Ch Supt Foster was sent six accounts that had been amended and asked for his comments. In a written response, he indicated that in his view, in all but one instance, the amendments made were unnecessary or inappropriate. He told the IOPC that, though he was aware at the time that accounts were being reviewed by SYP’s legal team, the first time he was aware of any concerns with the process was when it was raised by the Stuart-Smith Scrutiny.
When interviewed under caution by the IOPC, ACC Jones was asked about his awareness of SYP’s amendment process, in the context of the memo from DCI Ross. He stated: “What was going on in South Yorkshire Police was of no concern really... we didn’t have time to start getting involved in that.”
Even allowing for the time pressure around gathering material for the Taylor Inquiry, this appears an extraordinary response. It suggests that a senior officer in charge of gathering evidence for a public inquiry effectively dismissed an allegation that material changes were being made to other police officers’ evidence as “of no concern”.