In the months following the disaster, SYP received a small number of complaints about the actions of its officers on the day. These included complaints about the actions of some PCs who had been on duty at the Leppings Lane end of the stadium (inside and outside the ground) and a complaint that an officer had taken money to allow supporters into the ground. It had also received a complaint about Ch Supt Duckenfield’s comments to the FA and SWFC officials, shortly after the match had been stopped, that gave the impression that the disaster had been caused by supporters forcing a gate open. As detailed in chapter 7, Ch Supt Duckenfield has since acknowledged this was a lie.
Due to the seriousness of the allegations, SYP had initially invited two different police forces to investigate. Northamptonshire Police was asked to investigate the complaint about Ch Supt Duckenfield and GMP was asked to investigate the complaint about an officer taking money. SYP asked the PCA to supervise both investigations, which was standard practice at the time for more serious complaints. Unlike the IOPC, the PCA could not carry out investigations itself; it could only supervise them.
In these first months, WMP had no authority to investigate complaints, even though its officers were working for the Taylor Inquiry and the Popper Inquests. Instead, its responsibility was to alert SYP to any complaints it received.
On 20 April 1989—within the first few days of WMP’s involvement—ACC Jones recorded a policy decision that: “Where allegations of discipline offences appear these will be referred to the Senior Investigating Officer and a decision will be made on the merits of each as to the further action that needs to be taken. Once again the necessity to conserve evidence must be followed.”
A few days later, it was noted that any complaints or allegations against SYP should be “actioned and referred to office manager or Detective Chief Superintendent Foster.” D Ch Supt Foster was the most senior detective involved in the WMP investigation. He had also previously worked as a detective superintendent in WMP’s Complaints and Discipline department, giving him experience of managing complaints about police officers.
When interviewed under caution by the IOPC, D Ch Supt Foster pointed out that, at the point ACC Jones set this policy (26 April 1989), WMP did not have jurisdiction to investigate complaints. He suggested that any complaints received by WMP should have been simply forwarded to SYP to consider. This would have been the correct protocol under the police complaints framework in place at the time.
The IOPC has identified one occasion on which this protocol appears to have been followed. On 5 June 1989, Supt Thursfield—the WMP officer in charge of the force’s temporary operation in Merseyside—forwarded written statements from two Liverpool supporters for the attention of Ch Supt Denton of SYP. The statements contained allegations that officers on duty at the game had offered to let spectators without tickets into the ground, for money. This was the complaint that SYP asked GMP to investigate. The IOPC has found no reason to explain why GMP was invited to do this, but there is nothing to indicate it was an inappropriate decision. After taking statements from the complainant and other witnesses, GMP was unable to identify who the officer(s) may have been and recommended no further action.
In addition, on one occasion, a prospective complainant was advised to make their complaint to SYP rather than to WMP.
The IOPC has also identified two occasions where WMP did not follow this basic principle of passing matters back to SYP. One of these related to a letter sent by a Liverpool supporter, which was shared with WMP by Liverpool Football Club. In the letter, the supporter said he saw a police officer punch three supporters. WMP registered the letter on its HOLMES database, but no actions were raised. The apparent complaint—which, as it amounted to possible assault by a police officer, was a serious matter—was not referred back to SYP to be recorded.
The letter writer later complained to the IOPC that WMP had failed to recognise his letter as a complaint. The IOPC upheld this complaint.
In this initial period of evidence gathering, WMP developed a means of identifying potential complaints about the police as it processed questionnaires and statements gathered for the Taylor Inquiry. When the team in WMP’s MIR read a statement or questionnaire, they were required to tick relevant boxes on a standard ‘category template’ form to indicate the categories that the statement or questionnaire should be linked to. One of the categories set up was “Recognition”; this covered positive and negative comment about the police. It included sub-categories for “Adverse comments” and “Complaints”.
The IOPC has reviewed completed category templates against the contents of the questionnaires and statements. It appears the “complaints” box was only used where the witness was specifically recorded as stating that they wanted to complain. However, in total, around 3,000 witness accounts (questionnaires and/or statements) on WMP’s HOLMES database were marked as being in the category of adverse comments.
