Submit a complaint

21. The allegation that SYP and WMP sought to deflect blame for the disaster away from the police

What was investigated?

The IOPC investigated: 

Whether there is evidence to suggest that there may have been a general attempt by officers within SYP and/or WMP to deflect or minimise blame for the disaster from the police service, including by focusing on the behaviour or alleged behaviour of supporters.
 

What was found

• SYP did attempt to deflect blame for the disaster away from the police. Senior officers, working with the legal team, sought to advance a case that the disaster was caused by unprecedented and unforeseeable events, including the failings and actions of others, rather than as a result of any failings on the part of SYP corporately or of individual officers. 

• The IOPC has reached this view based on the consistent patterns in SYP’s actions following the disaster and in response to the various investigations into it—such as presenting a case that SYP had never been responsible for monitoring safety in the pens and then removing any references to that from officers’ accounts.

• SYP consistently tried to find and/or promote evidence of drunken behaviour by supporters. Even though this was largely dismissed by the Taylor Inquiry, SYP continued to promote such evidence in meetings with MPs and during the Popper Inquests. 

• This was an ongoing process, starting with the evidence presented to the Taylor Inquiry and continuing through the civil litigation and Popper Inquests. At different times, different senior officers were aware that at least some of these actions were taking place. 

• SYP was legally entitled to present the force’s best case to the Taylor Inquiry. Because they did not give evidence under oath, and police officers did not have a duty of candour at the time, as long as they did not put forward evidence that was false, misleading or inaccurate, they were not breaching professional standards.

• However, as detailed throughout this report, SYP consistently and intentionally presented unsubstantiated evidence. It also altered the evidence of officers before it was submitted, by amending their accounts. Even if such actions were legally permissible in relation to the Taylor Inquiry, they were not in keeping with the Inquiry’s aim to gain a full understanding of the disaster and to prevent such an incident from happening again. 

• There is no evidence that the attempt to deflect blame was related to Freemasonry, or that officers’ actions were undertaken to protect a fellow Freemason.

• The IOPC has not found evidence that WMP was instructed, or deliberately attempted, to deflect blame for the disaster away from the police in general and SYP in particular. However, WMP’s approach to its work for the Taylor Inquiry made it easier for SYP to present the case it wanted. Further, there is evidence to suggest that the officers leading WMP’s flawed and narrow criminal investigation had a fixed view of the evidence before they started.
 

Significant new evidence

The majority of the evidence the IOPC considered in addressing this term of reference was reviewed or gathered and analysed in relation to the other terms of reference for the investigation. This is shown by the number of cross-references in this chapter to evidence set out earlier.

However, the IOPC did gather new evidence about membership of the Freemasons among SYP officers, including from official records held by the United Grand Lodge of England (UGLE). This enabled investigators to assess the influence of Freemasonry within SYP at the time.

 

  1. The IOPC investigation focused on a range of allegations about the police response to the disaster, as examined over preceding chapters. However, looking at each of these allegations in isolation only tells part of the story. It has long been claimed that these individual aspects were part of something bigger: an orchestrated attempt by the police to shift the blame for the disaster from them on to supporters. 
     
  2. The first suggestion that there was some form of police ‘cover-up’ was reported in the media in the days after the disaster. Over the years, similar comments have been made by a wide range of people: not only by the families of those who died and Liverpool supporters, but also by some journalists, public figures and campaigners as well as other football supporters. In short, many believe that there was a cover-up, and the IOPC received several complaints to that effect.
     
  3. These complaints related to the actions of different officers over a long period of time. A range of police actions has been identified as allegedly forming part of this cover-up, and there have also been suggestions of involvement from the wider ‘establishment’. 
     
  4. This issue was therefore included in the IOPC’s terms of reference. In response, the IOPC sought to assess whether there was evidence, from across the whole of its investigation, of an organised or consistent attempt to minimise potential blame against police officers, and of organised or consistent attempts to draw attention to the behaviour of supporters. 
     
  5. The evidence, already set out across the chapters of this report, strongly indicates that SYP did deliberately and consistently try to deflect the blame for the disaster away from the police.