Further investigation into specific allegations of police contact or surveillance
The IOPC also investigated each of the incidents where families suggested that police contact occurred as a result of the police listening to their telephone conversations. Investigators were able to provide family members with a plausible alternative explanation for what had occurred. These explanations were welcomed by the families, even where it could not be confirmed that this was what had happened. The IOPC identified that in some cases the manner of the police when they then contacted the families was not appropriate. In particular, in one incident where WMP officers were sent to retrieve a document that should not have been in the public domain, the evidence indicates the officers behaved in an unnecessarily intimidating way towards the family. This complaint was upheld.
The allegations of individuals being followed were in many cases too vague in terms of dates and locations to enable further investigation. However, the IOPC did look in detail into one specific allegation, where a family member was conspicuously followed by police officers for almost a week—and on at least one occasion, spoke to the officers directly. This complaint was upheld.
To investigate the burglaries, the IOPC instructed Merseyside Police to retrieve all material relating to them, from initial incident logs through to subsequent investigations, and to provide names and ranks of all officers who attended. The initial response was disappointingly slow, and the IOPC had to escalate the issue to senior officers, including the Head of Professional Standards at Merseyside Police, before receiving the material. Having looked into the matter, the Head of Professional Standards apologised to the IOPC for the poor initial response from the force and ensured more comprehensive information was provided.
This information indicated poor practice in the crime recording process, with key information relating to the crimes being recorded either inadequately or inaccurately.
Two separate burglaries—the first burglary at the Hillsborough Centre and the first burglary at the HJC shop—were recorded as one incident.
No information at all—not even a crime reference number—was found in relation to either of the break-ins at the home of the individual involved in the campaign and support group.
Despite this, the information that was available did not support the allegation that the police were in any way involved in the burglaries. Some of the recollections that only material related to the disaster was stolen proved incorrect and in one case, witness accounts described those involved in the incident as youths, indicating they could not have been police officers. This does not, however, prove the campaigner or the campaign and support groups were not under police surveillance.
