Submit a complaint

Media coverage relating to an interview with CC Wright

  1. The final topic considered under this term of reference related to media coverage that followed an article based on an interview CC Wright gave to the Sheffield Star in February 1990. This was after the Taylor Inquiry had published its Final Report and CC Wright had announced he would be retiring on 1 May 1990. 
     
  2. CC Wright was quoted in the article as suggesting that he didn’t understand the Taylor Inquiry’s finding that supporters’ alcohol consumption had not contributed to the disaster. He was also quoted as saying “a different picture” would emerge at the forthcoming inquests. 
     
  3. After the interview was published by the Sheffield Star, it formed the basis for articles in several national papers too. CC Wright also gave an interview to The Times. SYP received three complaints about CC Wright’s comments from family members of people who had died in the disaster. The complaints all suggested that CC Wright was abusing his position in relation to his access to the media; that his remarks could prejudice the forthcoming inquests; and that the comments about a “different picture” emerging appeared to be related to allegations of high levels of alcohol consumption among supporters.
     
  4. These complaints were investigated in 1990, as part of WMP’s disciplinary investigation. CC Wright was interviewed by the investigating officers; he stated that the journalist had linked two distinct and unrelated points he had made, to create a slightly different meaning in the article. 
     
  5. The journalist was also interviewed and provided a full transcript of his conversation with CC Wright. This strongly supported CC Wright’s account. The transcript showed that CC Wright did say that he expected new evidence to emerge at the forthcoming inquests but did not say that this new evidence related to alcohol, as the article had indicated.
     
  6. The complaint investigation concluded: “There is nothing in the words used by Mr Wright which can be construed as inaccurate, unfair, irresponsible or unjust” and there was “no evidence that Mr Wright was intending to influence the Inquests or any other proceedings”.
     
  7. The IOPC re-examined this complaint, and found the transcript supports CC Wright’s assertion that his comments were made as separate points and had then been linked in the article.
     
  8. Nonetheless, making comments that in any way cast doubt on the Taylor Inquiry conclusions was ill-timed ahead of the Popper Inquests and could be seen as an attempt to undermine the Inquiry’s conclusions. His actions were insensitive, and when invited to withdraw his comments, he declined— indicating he did not necessarily disapprove of the manner in which they had been reported.
     
  9. The IOPC therefore concluded that CC Wright’s actions in relation to the articles could be deemed to have breached the discreditable conduct standard, and that he would have had a case to answer for misconduct, if he had still been serving.
     
  10. These articles were the final stage in a series of interactions between CC Wright and the media, from the press conference on the evening of the disaster onwards. There, he had asserted that his officers would be vindicated, inferring from the outset that he did not believe the police were to blame, despite his acknowledgement that Gate C had been opened on police instruction. Over the following months, he consistently expressed to colleagues a view that supporters were in some way to blame for the disaster. When he gave the interview to the Sheffield Star, and another to The Times at around the same date, he expressed reservations about the Taylor Inquiry finding that alcohol consumption by supporters had no effect on the events. He also made some veiled procedural criticisms, relating to the way the Taylor Inquiry heard evidence. 
     
  11. These remarks were insensitive, cast at least some doubt on Lord Justice Taylor’s conclusions and could have had the effect of prejudicing the inquests. Having considered all of these interactions, the IOPC view was that CC Wright therefore would have had a case to answer for gross misconduct, on the grounds of discreditable conduct.