Submit a complaint

Complaints and conduct matters relating to police planning

  1. SYP asserted that its planning for the 1989 Semi-Final was largely the same as for the 1988 one. However, there were several differences that may have been significant, including the replacement of the match commander, and the lack of a joint planning meeting between SYP and SWFC meant that potentially significant information, such as the change in turnstile arrangements, may not have been communicated sufficiently to SYP. Taken as a whole, it suggests a laissez-faire and inadequate approach to planning, the disastrous consequences of which became apparent.
     
  2. The crushing incidents at previous semi-finals amply demonstrated the dangers of overcrowding. The Operational Order should have not only described this risk but also set out clear responsibilities and guidance on contingencies to prevent overcrowding. This was not the case. This was one of several key issues that was not addressed within police planning, which was also poorly coordinated. 
     
  3. The failures of police planning were considered in complaint and conduct reports produced by Operation Resolve. The IOPC was of the view that both ACC Jackson and Supt Murray would have had a case to answer for gross misconduct, if they had still been serving, on the grounds that they failed to plan adequately for the match.
     
  4. For ACC Jackson, the IOPC noted a series of failings, categorised as neglect of duty. These include that as the senior officer with overall responsibility for the planning process, he failed to ensure that learning from previous matches was properly gathered and used to inform future plans. He also failed to ensure that the Operational Order contained instructions about key issues, including how the queues to the turnstiles were to be properly supervised and how the capacity of the pens would be monitored—both of which were set out as key responsibilities in the Green Guide and other key guidance.
     
  5. For Supt Murray, the IOPC identified that he would have had a case to answer for neglect of duty, for instructing officers that supporters should find their own level rather than giving explicit instructions that officers were responsible for ensuring that supporters were evenly and safely distributed across their allocated areas.