Submit a complaint

Complaints and conduct matters related to the events of the day

  1. Operation Resolve investigated a number of complaints and conduct matters relating to the events of the day, up to the opening of the exit gates, and provided reports on each to the IOPC. Having reviewed the evidence detailed in these individual reports, the IOPC opinion was that four officers would have had a case to answer for gross misconduct, if they had still been serving. Some of the grounds for the IOPC’s opinion are set out below.
     
  2. Ch Supt Duckenfield would have had a case to answer for neglect of duty on several counts, beginning earlier in the day when he did not brief officers in sufficient detail about how they should police the arrival of supporters at the Leppings Lane end. This was then followed by a series of key failings of control as the crowd built.
     
  3. He did not take reasonable steps to assess the number of spectators yet to enter the stadium, which was directly related to the subsequent decision not to delay the kick-off, also identified as a key failing.
     
  4. Having failed to prevent a dangerous build-up of supporters outside the Leppings Lane turnstiles, he then authorised opening the exit gates without fully considering the likely impact of doing so. Nor did he give any warning to officers that the exit gates were about to be opened, or any instructions to officers about how to manage the influx of supporters.
     
  5. Supt Murray would have also had a case to answer for neglect of duty in relation to his failings to prevent a dangerous build-up of supporters outside the gates and to control the movement of supporters following the opening of Gate C. He did not use his additional knowledge and experience to assist Ch Supt Duckenfield: he failed to anticipate that a dangerous build-up of the crowd could occur and advised Ch Supt Duckenfield incorrectly that all the supporters would be able to enter the ground in time for the scheduled kick-off. Neither of them checked turnstile count data.
     
  6. He also specifically acknowledged that he knew supporters coming through Gate C would be most likely to head to the central tunnel, but he failed to consider the risks of this or give instructions to ensure the safe distribution of supporters.
     
  7. Supt Marshall would have had a case to answer for neglect of duty because, among other factors, he failed to take steps to ensure that the supporters were able to queue safely for entry through the turnstiles. Once it became apparent that the police had lost control of the situation at the turnstiles, he failed to request that the kick-off should be delayed.
     
  8. PS Morgan was subject to a conduct investigation, initiated by Operation Resolve rather than as a result of complaints. He would have also had a case to answer for gross misconduct, for the offence of neglect of duty in relation to two issues. The first of these was that he left his allocated area of responsibility on the inner concourse without good reason for over half an hour during the build-up to kick-off. It appears he did not return to this area as swiftly as he could have done, leaving his serial without supervision during the critical period when the crowd built up outside the turnstiles. The second allegation related to his role in the 2.52pm opening of Gate C. With evidence available to indicate that he asked for Gate C to be opened at this time, he failed to consider the impact of opening the gate—even though he had already witnessed the consequences of the 2.48pm opening—and also did not articulate any concerns to senior officers.