Complaints and conduct matters relating to the emergency response

Operation Resolve investigated a number of complaints and conduct matters relating to the emergency response and provided reports to the IOPC. Having reviewed the evidence detailed in these individual reports, the IOPC opinion was that ACC Jackson, Ch Supt Duckenfield and Supt Murray would have all had a case to answer for gross misconduct, if they had still been serving with the police. Supt Greenwood would also have had a case to answer for misconduct.
ACC Jackson would have had a case to answer for neglect of duty because he failed to take control of the situation. As the senior officer on call, he should have declared a major incident, rather than calling for Operation Support. Once he realised that Ch Supt Duckenfield was faltering, he should have assumed command of the rescue operation. While he did undertake some important actions, such as initiating the Casualty Bureau, he failed to provide overall coordination of the emergency services response, as according to the SYP Major Incident Manual the police should have done. Further, by taking Ch Supt Duckenfield from the PCB to meet SWFC officials, he left a more junior officer (Supt Murray) in sole command for a 12-minute period without guidance or instructions.
Ch Supt Duckenfield would have had a case to answer for neglect of duty on a number of grounds. Despite having an excellent viewpoint from the PCB, he failed to act when it became obvious that Pen 3 and Pen 4 were overfull and that people were in distress. He then was slow to coordinate a rescue operation and did not organise and direct the officers under his command to help save lives. He too could have declared a major incident, but did not, and then failed to take control of the police response as set out in the SYP Major Incident Manual—for example, by failing to communicate effectively with the other emergency services and to coordinate their efforts.
Several of these same issues applied to Supt Murray, who would also have had a case to answer for neglect of duty for failing to respond to the situation, being slow to coordinate a rescue operation and not organising and directing the officers under his command to help save lives. Despite going onto the pitch at a key time, he failed to identify the seriousness of the situation in Pens 3 and 4 and failed to respond to it quickly enough. He did not effectively advise Ch Supt Duckenfield regarding the dangerousness of the situation. He also did not liaise effectively with others to coordinate a response to the disaster.
Supt Greenwood would have had a case to answer for misconduct for a range of allegations about his organisation of the rescue effort. While he did take a number of actions in response to the unfolding disaster, there were other steps he could have taken to better coordinate the police response. He focused his efforts on Pen 3 and was highly involved in the rescue effort: however, as the senior officer in that location, he could have directed others to do this and taken an overview of the situation, coordinated medical triaging and deployed police resources more effectively.