The focus of the IOPC investigation was not on the accuracy or appropriateness of the coverage itself—the IOPC has no authority to investigate the media—but on the roles played by police officers in the media reporting. The IOPC also looked into the interactions of SYP officers with journalists.
Following the publication of the HIP Report, SYP referred a range of allegations to the IOPC for investigation. This referral identified various potential criminal offences, including attempting to pervert the course of justice by misleading the press, and perverting the course of justice by providing copies of officers’ accounts to White’s News Agency.
WMP also referred some matters to the IOPC, including the leaking of SYP accounts to the media, because evidence suggested that this happened after WMP had collected officer accounts from SYP.
The IOPC also received a number of complaints relating to police interaction with the media.
Some related to Ch Supt Duckenfield’s comments to officials from SWFC and the FA that the disaster had been caused by supporters forcing a gate, which the officials then passed on to the media.
Others referred to an interview with CC Wright, which was published in the Sheffield Star on 5 February 1990. In it, he was quoted as making critical comments about the Taylor Inquiry and suggesting “a different picture” would emerge at the forthcoming inquests. The complainants alleged he deliberately misled the journalist and could potentially have prejudiced jurors at the forthcoming inquests.
To investigate these allegations, IOPC investigators reviewed hundreds of newspaper articles related to the disaster, from national and local publications. This was supported by a review of existing statements and documents held in the archived material, including the SYP press log, which was intended to provide a record of all contact between the SYP press office and the media. Through this approach, the IOPC was able to build a detailed timeline of the evolving media coverage.
When taking statements from (former) SYP officers, investigators routinely asked them if they had any contact with the media in the aftermath of the disaster. The majority said they did not; some recalled being contacted by journalists but said they had not provided them with any information. The IOPC also took statements from SYP officers or civilian staff who were known to have interacted with journalists, including those who worked in the SYP press office at the time.
IOPC investigators traced and, where appropriate, took witness statements from newspaper journalists whose names appeared on the articles, as well as others who were known to have been in the press box at the stadium on the day of the Semi-Final. Almost 200 journalists were contacted and asked about their recollections of the disaster and its aftermath; based on their responses to investigators’ preliminary questions, 44 were asked to provide statements to the IOPC. Of these, 24 worked on local or regional newspapers, six were national media journalists who were in the press box on the day of the disaster, and 14 were national journalists who appeared to have used material from the White’s news feed.
Journalists were also asked about any interactions they had with police officers. Many said they did not speak directly to police officers; a small number recalled they had done but could not remember the officers’ names or any identifying details. Some specifically told the IOPC that if they could remember the officers’ names, they would have willingly disclosed them, as they felt any right the sources may have had to anonymity had been lost by the fact that the stories had been false.
