Involvement of under 18s in the identification process

Almost a third of those who died in the disaster were aged 18 or under. A significant number of those involved in the identification process were also under 18. Some of those individuals, and members of their families, have since complained to the IOPC that it was not appropriate for them to have been asked to assist in identifying friends or family members and that they should have had better support.
Stuart Hamilton was 15 years old when he attended the match with a group of others, including his uncle and his father Roy. Roy died in the disaster. Stuart and his uncle were at the Boys’ Club for several hours before being taken to the gymnasium just before midnight. They were not told where they were going and assumed they were being taken to a hospital. He said that when they arrived at the gymnasium, they waited in a holding room for several hours, and during that time he told a social worker how old he was.
He said he was then taken to view photographs and saw between 30 and 50 before he identified his father, and the photograph was taken down from the board. He said that he was then taken to another room where he physically identified his father. He explained that his uncle was also there, but he had “broken down” by then and was “in no fit state by this point in time to act as a guardian for me or make an identification.”
Stuart was then taken to a recovery room where he was reunited with other members of his family, who he said by that time had also been shown the photographs. However, because Roy’s photograph had been removed, they mistakenly believed that he was still alive. Stuart had to explain that was not the case, that his father had died, and his photograph had already been taken down.
Reflecting on this in a 2016 statement to Operation Resolve, Stuart said that he believed there had been “a collective and fundamental supervisory failing in the entire identification process.” He commented: “Throughout the process I was never treated as a child, as I should have been. Immediate consideration should have been given for me not to view the photos or be involved in the formal identification. Someone should have taken responsibility and stopped my involvement in the process; yet I feel no-one took my best interests into consideration”.
Stuart made a complaint about the fact that as a minor, he was asked and allowed to view numerous photographs of those who died, to identify his father. His complaint was upheld by the IOPC as SYP and specifically D Ch Supt Addis should have provided guidance regarding the presence of juveniles, to ensure that their welfare and wellbeing was not negatively impacted by the process of identification.
Police Sergeant Stephen Royle supervised the viewings of the photographs. In a statement made in 2016, he said he didn’t recall any children being involved and said that he would have advised that it was not appropriate for them to be there.
However, Detective Constable Michael Dynes told Operation Resolve in a 2018 statement that he recalled some children being present at identifications. However, he said that these children were accompanied by adult relatives and that it “was left to the relative to decide” whether the child should be involved. He added that “if totally inappropriate and the child appeared not fit to do so I personally would have challenged the decision.”
While this appears a superficially considerate approach, Operation Resolve found no evidence of any specific instructions being given to this effect, nor of how officers would deal with a situation where the adult relatives were not fit to make decisions on behalf of the child.
There was no law or guidance in existence that prevented under 18s from being involved in the identification process. However, there was clear legal provision for recognising the vulnerability of those under the age of 18 and treating them differently. In line with this, it may have been expected that at least some additional support or consideration would have been given.