While the examples listed here appear to demonstrate a wide-ranging and consistent attempt to deflect the blame away from the police, not all of SYP’s actions in the aftermath of the disaster—or those of its officers—form part of this pattern.
For example, chapters 12 and 13 of this report summarise the IOPC’s investigation into the allegations that blood alcohol testing and PNC checks were carried out on those who died to besmirch their reputations: the IOPC has not found evidence that this was the intent. Nor is there evidence that SYP was behind, or even involved in, the disappearance of two video tapes from the SWFC control room.
There is no doubt that Ch Supt Duckenfield’s lie that the disaster was caused when supporters broke through a gate has had a lasting impact. Similarly, the media coverage after the disaster that focused on the behaviour of supporters led to an enduring public perception that they had somehow been to blame, even though the Taylor Interim Report wholly rejected that view. The HIP Report again called this perception into question and the Goldring Inquests reaffirmed that the actions of supporters in no way caused or contributed to the disaster.
Yet despite the immense damage and hurt that the lie and the media coverage caused, it is not clear that either was the result of a coordinated corporate attempt to deflect blame from the police. The lie was told so quickly, there was no chance for SYP to organise it, and CC Wright corrected it on the night of the disaster. Aside from CC Wright, the central figures quoted in the media reporting did not act or speak on behalf of SYP. The IOPC has not found evidence to indicate that the ensuing coverage was a result of any organised effort by SYP or its legal team.
Though large numbers of SYP officers have provided accounts or statements, and given oral evidence, in which they have highlighted the behaviour of supporters, it is not clear that these accounts were made purely or primarily in an attempt to deflect or minimise blame. Many were responding to a request to provide recollections of what they did and saw, “including crowd behaviour” and to comment on issues such as the mood of the supporters and their own “fears, feelings and observations.”
While the result is that officers described personal experiences that, when viewed collectively, may have supported an attempt to deflect the blame, the IOPC has not found evidence that they wrote their accounts to fit an ‘agreed’ storyline, on the instruction or under direction from senior officers.
Officers made these accounts in an unusual format (see paragraph 9.80). This offered SYP an opportunity to control and amend the evidence its officers gave. However, it cannot be determined that this was SYP’s intention from the outset. Some senior officers have provided plausible alternative explanations for the approach. Further, the evidence indicates there was no forcewide instruction to officers that they should not write pocket notebook entries as normal. Therefore, the IOPC does not view the fact that accounts were made in an unusual format, or the fact that some officers have stated they were not to use their pocket notebooks, as part of the coordinated attempt to deflect blame.
