Once a family member or friend had identified their loved one, they were taken to a separate area where they gave an identification statement to a police officer. At that stage another police officer completed a standard SYP form, known as a GEN/18, which recorded information about the person who had died and the circumstances of their death. This same process was followed for identifications made at the gymnasium and later at the MLC.
Identification statements are a standard requirement when someone has died suddenly. Their primary purpose is to formally record the identity of the person who has died. Sometimes, those giving the statement are also asked to provide brief details of the person’s movements on the day they died or, where relevant, other details about the person’s health and background.
While the completion of these statements was a necessary step in the identification process, the manner in which this was done has since been subject to a number of complaints and criticisms. A significant number of those who gave identification statements, plus several of the volunteers who supported them, have consistently said that the officers taking the statements questioned them about both their and their loved one’s alcohol consumption. Some also recalled being asked about whether they, and/or the person who had died, had a valid match ticket.
The immediate reaction of many of those giving the identification statements was that such questions were deeply insensitive and sometimes insulting; some also emphasised that they felt these matters were of no relevance to their loved one’s death.
Paul Dunderdale, whose friend Graham Roberts died in the disaster, provided a statement to his solicitors in 2013 for use at the Goldring Inquests. He said that following the identification he was required to make a statement in the gymnasium. He recalled: “The first four questions were all about alcohol and how much Graham had drank…the police officer also asked about tickets and was pushy.”
Andrew Brown identified his brother David Steven Brown (known to his family as Steven) who died in the disaster. In a statement made to his solicitors in 2014, Andrew said that following the identification, police officers took a statement from him in the gymnasium: “They both asked me questions mainly along the lines of how much we had to drink and what time we got there etc.”
Methodist minister Ian Hamilton supported a number of families through the identification process. In a statement made in 2017, he said: “Questions were asked about the age of the deceased, who they went to the match with, and such like. One of the questions asked was whether the deceased had been drinking.” He commented: “Whilst the questions may not have been scripted it did seem to me that the same questions were being asked of all the family members who had made identifications including the one about the consumption of alcohol which I thought was a little inappropriate.”
Having since seen copies of the statements that were taken, some have commented that the questions they were asked were not recorded in their statements.
Operation Resolve has reviewed all of the identification statements made on 15 and 16 April 1989. Of, these, five contained references to alcohol or visiting pubs. All five were provided by people who had been at the match. In the identification statements made by the families and friends who raised the issue to Operation Resolve, there was no mention of the alcohol consumption of either the person who died or the person giving the statement.
Operation Resolve interviewed several officers who had been involved in taking identification statements. Only one thought that he asked about alcohol consumption. In a statement made to Operation Resolve in 2017, Detective Sergeant Russell Hallows said that he believed this to be standard procedure for all deaths he dealt with and said there was no instruction to do so after the disaster.
The consistent response from officers involved in taking identification statements has been that they received no instructions to ask about alcohol consumption and did not do so. Similarly, the senior officers involved in the gymnasium have stated they did not instruct anyone to ask families and friends about alcohol consumption and that doing so would have been inappropriate.
With the evidence indicating there was no instruction to officers about alcohol, the question remains why so many of the families and friends who gave identification statements recalled being asked about it.
In addition to the criticisms family members and friends have made of police officers asking them questions about alcohol consumption and match tickets, a number were also critical about the insensitive way police officers treated them at the gymnasium.
In a statement made to his solicitors in 2015, Leslie Jones described his upset at having to provide three statements to police officers at the gymnasium after he had identified his son Richard and Richard’s partner Tracey Cox. Mr Jones recalled that a senior police officer remained by his side throughout that time and interrupted him as he made the identification statements, questioning anything he said, when all he wanted was to get his family out of the place they were in. In 1989, he asked WMP to identify the senior officer, so he could complain; WMP was not able to do so.
Mr Jones added that by the time they finished making statements, it was 3.30am, some 10 hours after he and his wife had arrived in Sheffield, and when they left the police station no police officer asked about their welfare.
Social worker Howard Waddicor assisted the Jones family during the identification process. In a statement made to Operation Resolve in 2015, he said the most difficult part of the process was the interview the family had with CID officers. He described the questioning as “brutal”, with no effort to comfort them. He said he did not get a sense of there being a conspiracy by the police to treat the family badly, just that there was no feeling or understanding and that it was “really tough” for the family.
It should be acknowledged that other family members and volunteers have said that the police officers they dealt with were sympathetic and handled the situation and overall identification process with sensitivity.
This suggests that families had very different experiences, depending on the officers they engaged with.
