Submit a complaint

Examining whether WMP followed up potential complaints adequately

  1. However, the disparity between the number of adverse comments made about the police and the number of complaints recorded led to the concern that WMP may have deliberately sought to minimise how many complaints it had to investigate. 
     
  2. One key allegation was that WMP did not follow up on some adverse comments, or recontact some witnesses, even though their records suggested they had done. Over the course of its investigation, the IOPC received three complaints from individuals who—according to WMP records —had been contacted by phone in relation to an adverse comment they had made. All three told the IOPC that they had no recollection of being contacted.
     
  3. In three of the four cases, records on the WMP HOLMES database showed that the individual was recontacted by WMP by telephone in relation to an adverse comment they had made. According to these records, the individual advised WMP that they did not wish to make a complaint. There was no statement taken to this effect, so the records were simply in the form of brief messages to the MIR from the officer involved. In each case, the officer was D Supt Beechey.
     
  4. Each of these three complainants told the IOPC that they had no recollection of this further contact from D Supt Beechey. All three also stated to the IOPC that they would not have said they did not wish to make a complaint.
     
  5. The IOPC examined all available evidence about what WMP did in these three instances. Though documents do not prove that WMP did recontact all witnesses, the specific detail of notes made by D Supt Beechey indicate that he did at least make efforts to contact each of them. This does not therefore support the view that WMP was deliberately seeking to minimise the number of complaints under investigation. 
     
  6. The IOPC also identified some instances where initial evidence indicated that WMP may not have managed a complaint—or potential complaint—in the correct way. During the course of WMP’s investigation, various actions were raised for D Ch Supt Foster to review witness accounts that included adverse comments, to determine how they should be handled. In a small number of these instances, D Ch Supt Foster instructed that the individual should be recontacted as a potential witness for an existing complaint about a PC on duty, rather than as a complainant in their own right. On a couple of further occasions, he specifically advised that individuals should be recontacted to see whether they wished to complain. If they did not, he advised they should be treated as witnesses for existing complaints.
     
  7. However, when IOPC investigators reviewed the questionnaires and statements that include these adverse comments, they found details in some of the accounts that made it unlikely that the witness was describing the actions of the officers already under investigation.
     
  8. For example, in one of the cases where D Ch Supt Foster advised that the individual should be treated as a witness for the allegations against PC Scott, the witness referred to a mounted officer allegedly using his stick (a police officer’s baton) against supporters. However, the recorded complaints against PC Scott were in relation to him striking a supporter with his hand—an act that had been shown on TV footage in the days after the disaster—rather than a baton. This was more than a simple inaccuracy on D Ch Supt Foster’s part; the use of a baton against supporters was a serious allegation that merited investigating in its own right.
     
  9. Two allegations about the actions of officers on the perimeter track in front of the West Terrace included references to officers punching or kicking supporters who were trying to escape the pens. These were stronger allegations than those that had already been recorded against PC Smith or PC Illingworth, who were under investigation for pushing supporters back.
     
  10. The IOPC reviewed how WMP followed up on the instructions to treat these individuals as additional witnesses.
     
  11. In most cases, there is documentary evidence to suggest that the individuals were recontacted. Some were recorded as stating they did not wish to complain. Others who were reinterviewed several months after the disaster were unable to recall further details to help identify the officers who may have been involved. 
     
  12. Some of those who had made adverse comments about a mounted officer were subsequently shown the footage of PC Scott appearing to strike a supporter. They were asked if this was the same incident they had witnessed or indeed involved the same officer. None of those shown the footage recognised PC Scott as the officer involved in the incident they had witnessed.
     
  13. Failing to revisit some individual cases could be seen as omissions, particularly the serious allegation that a mounted officer used a baton against supporters. However, this occurred in a very small proportion of the potential complaints. This does not suggest that WMP systematically sought to prevent further complaints being made.