Submit a complaint

Considering whether WMP also sought to deflect the blame away from the police

  1. The IOPC was also tasked to investigate whether there was evidence that WMP sought to deflect blame for the disaster away from fellow police officers. As set out in chapters 14–17, the IOPC has identified a number of issues for which WMP’s investigations could be—and, in some cases, have been—criticised. None of these offer evidence that WMP deliberately attempted to deflect blame away from the police, nor that it was instructed to. 
     
  2. A large number of Liverpool supporters have made complaints about aspects of WMP’s evidence collection in Merseyside shortly after the disaster (see paragraphs 14.55–14.94). While such complaints paint a picture of an approach that lacked compassion, they do not suggest a deliberate attempt on the part of those officers to deflect blame from the police. In particular, the recording of large numbers of criticisms of SYP indicates a willingness on WMP’s part to accept there were flaws in the police operation at the 1989 Semi-Final.
     
  3. However, WMP’s approach to its work may have made it easier for SYP to shape its case and control the story. In particular, WMP’s decisions not to take statements from SYP officers, and to allow SYP and its legal team to amend officer accounts, meant that some potentially relevant evidence from officers was not presented to the Taylor Inquiry (see paragraphs 14.95–14.124).
     
  4. Though WMP knew that SYP officers’ accounts were not sufficient to be used as evidence for a criminal prosecution, it continued to refer to them throughout its criminal investigation and the file of evidence it submitted to the DPP for a charging decision. This was one of several flaws the IOPC has identified in WMP’s criminal investigation; others included the small number of investigative actions it undertook and the decision not to interview suspects under caution before submitting the file. 
     
  5. Though these were significant shortcomings in the investigation, they did not directly deflect blame for the disaster away from the police and the IOPC has not found evidence that this was WMP’s intention. However, there is evidence that the two officers leading WMP’s work—ACC Jones and, in particular, D Ch Supt Foster—did hold the view that the Taylor Inquiry underestimated the importance of the behaviour of supporters (see paragraphs 14.150–14.164).
     
  6. This serves as a possible explanation for why WMP repeatedly referred to aspects of alleged supporter behaviour in the file of evidence it submitted to the DPP and, in its analysis, focused on how supporter behaviour may have affected police actions on the day.
     
  7. D Ch Supt Foster rejected this suggestion and denied that this—or any other failing identified by the IOPC—was a result of bias or part of an attempt to cover up SYP’s part in the disaster. This view was echoed by other WMP senior officers including CC Dear and ACC Jones, who stated to the IOPC that he completely refuted such allegations.