There is a range of evidence to indicate that police officers spoke to the media about the disaster.
On Sunday 16 April, the SYP press log recorded an enquiry from Bob Westerdale, a journalist at the Sheffield Star, who said that he had “info from an unnamed officer who said the trouble was caused by 4000 drunken Liverpool supporters.” According to the press log, the SYP press office did not comment.
On Monday 17 April, among the extensive media coverage of the disaster, several newspapers published quotes from police officers—none of whom were named. For example, in The Independent, an officer was reported as saying: “I know my back will be covered in bruises. It’s been kicked all afternoon by Liverpool supporters while I’ve been trying to tend the injured.”
The Times included the comment: “Fellow officers were punched and kicked as they carried a dead girl, about nine years old, from the ground.” As the youngest person who died in the disaster was a boy aged 10, and the youngest woman who died was 15, it is not clear who this officer was referring to.
The SYP press log that day recorded queries from journalists at the Sheffield Star and The Sun asking for police comment on various allegations of misbehaviour by supporters; both reportedly asked about the allegation that officers had been urinated on. The press office did not comment on the allegations.
In its City Late edition (published mid-afternoon), the Sheffield Star named Supt Marshall as the police officer who had opened a gate at the stadium. The front-page article stated that he had made the decision “fearing a wall was seconds away from collapsing on hundreds of fans” outside. The article quoted an unnamed “high-ranking” colleague and an “officer at the scene”, both of whom offered support for Supt Marshall. Neither was quoted as commenting on the behaviour of supporters. However, the article did include references to some fans being “the worse for drink” and arriving late.
The comments in support of Supt Marshall were repeated in the Daily Mail on 18 April. The paper also included quotations from PC Middup, who was the SYP Police Federation representative. He strongly criticised the behaviour of supporters, stating that “they were arriving tanked up on drink”, and that: “Even as our lads were giving the kiss-of-life to victims they were being spat upon and pelted with coins.” The same article also quoted an unnamed chief inspector, who stated: “I have no doubt that a major contributory factor in the disaster was excessive drinking.”
In its first edition of the day, published around lunchtime, the Sheffield Star included an article headlined: ‘Fans in drunken attacks on police’. The article claimed: “Emergency workers were attacked and even urinated on by drunken fans”. One “high-ranking officer” was quoted as saying: “Some were like animals: drunk and violent”. The same quotation concluded: “People were picking coins off the floor as victims lay needing help.”
The same day, White’s News Agency issued a news feed consisting of three stories, all of which included allegations about supporter behaviour. Such feeds were made available to newspapers and other media outlets to reuse for a fee. The first article in the feed quoted three unnamed officers. In the second piece, an unnamed officer stated: “People were picking up coins which had fallen from victim's pockets as they lay on the floor”, and one “high-ranking officer” was quoted as saying: “Some of them were like animals, they were drunk and violent.” These words were almost identical to one of the quotations in the Sheffield Star; however, the White’s feed split the quotation between two officers. The second story also quoted PC Middup, using quotes very similar to those featured in the Daily Mail that morning.
The third story in the news feed was an extended quote from Irvine Patnick, Conservative MP for Sheffield Hallam.
In its West End Final edition that evening, the London Evening Standard published the material from White’s, largely verbatim.
At 6.30pm, the SYP press office received the first of a series of queries from journalists regarding a report they had received from an agency about supporters attacking the police. According to the press log, each caller was referred to WMP, which had by this time been given responsibility for investigating the disaster.
At 9pm that evening, both PC Middup and Mr Patnick featured in a BBC News broadcast. Both made comments about the behaviour of supporters that were similar to the quotes that had already been attributed to them in newspaper coverage.
At 10pm, Mr Patnick was featured in an ‘ITN News’ broadcast, again repeating the allegations. He stated that he had spoken to officers who had been attacked.
On Wednesday 19 April, several national newspapers published articles that appear to have been strongly based on the White’s news feed of the previous day. These included The Times, the Daily Express, the Daily Mail and the Daily Mirror.
The paper that gave the stories the greatest prominence was The Sun, in a now notorious article headlined ‘The Truth’. The key difference between The Sun’s coverage and that of other papers was that, rather than couching the stories in the language of allegations, The Sun published them as facts—emphasised by its headline. It also added two aspects that were not in the White’s feed: a further allegation and a quote from PC Middup, suggesting that The Sun had requested a comment from him.
Though media coverage of the disaster continued, the intensity reduced after this. It is clear that these initial stories were the most influential in terms of public opinion and caused the greatest distress.
The IOPC sought to identify the sources of the stories and in particular the quotes. Aside from official statements made in press conferences by CC Wright, the only police officer who was named as commenting on the behaviour of supporters was PC Middup. He was first quoted on the subject in the national papers on the morning of Tuesday 18 April. Other quotes were attributed variously to “officers who had been on duty”, “senior officers” and “experienced officers”.
There were two similar comments, both attributed to unnamed chief inspectors. In the Daily Mail on 18 April, a chief inspector was quoted as saying: “I have no doubt that a major contributory factor in the disaster was excessive drinking.” Then in an article from a different paper—which appears to be the Sheffield Star—an unnamed chief inspector was quoted as stating: “I am convinced excessing drinking was a major contributory factor.”
In this second article, the chief inspector was described as having “emerged from the temporary mortuary.” There were two chief inspectors known to have been in the temporary mortuary. Based on the strong similarity between these comments and words he has used in other accounts, the IOPC has identified that Ch Insp Sumner was the most likely source of these comments. This clear similarity led to a complaint about Ch Insp Sumner speaking to the media in this way so soon after the disaster. The IOPC has upheld this complaint, as in speaking to the media in this way Ch Insp Sumner did not deliver the level of service the public would expect.
Despite asking dozens of officers, as well as over 100 journalists, IOPC investigators have not been able to identify any other officers who spoke to journalists. No officer has admitted being an unnamed source. Even those officers who have given accounts, as recently as the Goldring Inquests, describing high levels of alcohol consumption among supporters, have flatly denied speaking to the media in the immediate aftermath of the disaster.
None of the Sheffield Star journalists interviewed by the IOPC said they knew where the original allegations regarding supporters’ behaviour came from. Several journalists from other media outlets referred to stories and rumours about supporter behaviour beginning to circulate after the disaster. However, none of journalists interviewed by IOPC investigators were willing or able to identify a police source. Apart from calling the SYP press office, very few even recalled speaking to a police officer.
A common view among the journalists interviewed was that, at the time, they trusted police officers to tell them the truth and did not question what officers had told them. However, most would seek corroboration from at least one other source—potentially, though not necessarily, another officer—before proceeding with a story. This was certainly the view of journalists at both White’s and the Sheffield Star. Once a quote was published by another news outlet, others would feel able to reuse it without seeking corroboration themselves.
Two individuals have acknowledged their role in sharing stories with the media: PC Middup and Mr Patnick.
In a statement to the IOPC, PC Middup confirmed that he had made all the comments attributed to him. He explained that, in engaging with the media in relation to the disaster, he simply repeated what officers had told him. He added that he had not checked whether their accounts were true before sharing them. In fact, the IOPC has found evidence that he did seek to get some of the details confirmed at a Police Federation meeting on 18 April, where according to the minutes, he specifically “asked for the names of people who were abused because the Inquiry will want to know them.” This was after he had first spoken to the media.
Mr Patnick’s own notes from the time show that on the evening of the disaster, he went to the Niagara Police Sports and Social Club, which had been opened as an informal meeting point for officers. While he was there, Mr Patnick spoke to a group of SYP officers who made various allegations about the behaviour of Liverpool supporters. These included reports of officers being assaulted and urinated on by supporters. At the end of the conversation, Mr Patnick was asked by the officers to speak up for them and to tell Parliament what had happened.
Mr Patnick’s notes state that he “was advised by senior officers to take what had been said ‘with a pinch of salt.’” However, Mr Patnick subsequently repeated several of these stories to the media.
Further, on 20 April 1989, Mr Patnick wrote to Lord Justice Taylor, whose inquiry had been announced. He explained that he had deliberately spoken to the media about the behaviour of Liverpool supporters: “Eventually after being sickened by the ‘myths’ that had sprung up about the disaster I repeated the story in part to the media in order to correct the rumours circulating the police officers had related to me.” He added: “I am not aware of names ranks or numbers of the officers but do believe they were telling me the truth.”
Following the publication of the HIP Report, Mr Patnick issued a statement, acknowledging that he had repeated to the media information that he had been given by officers. He apologised for not questioning the accuracy of that information. Mr Patnick died shortly after the IOPC investigation began and investigators did not have an opportunity to interview him.
There is some evidence to indicate that Mr Patnick did seek to check the accuracy of what he had said. On 12 July 1989, Peter Moxon of White’s sent a letter to Mr Patnick including extracts from “sworn statements” made by witnesses. The IOPC has established that these were in fact not signed and sworn statements, but accounts written on plain paper from a small number of police and ambulance officers, apparently sent in response to a request from Mr Patnick. The extracts included references to officers being attacked, spat at and urinated on by supporters. One officer also alleged that he had seen supporters stealing.
Mr Patnick responded on 27 July 1989 thanking Mr Moxon for the accounts. He noted they “actually confirm everything you stated”. It is not clear whether Mr Patnick was referring to what was stated in the content of the news feed or what may have been stated in separate conversations.
The IOPC has not been able to establish how White’s received the accounts. Mr Moxon could not recall it. However, it is unlikely that White’s had received the accounts by the time it sent out the news feed that included allegations around supporter behaviour. The feed was sent on 18 April 1989; most officers had not completed their accounts by that date.
No one who provided a statement to the IOPC—from SYP, WMP and SYMAS officers, to solicitors working for any of these organisations—has indicated in any way that they passed the accounts to White’s or even that they were aware that it was done.
The evidence available to the IOPC gives the strong impression that both Mr Patnick and PC Middup simply repeated stories they had been told, without checking them.
