Mr Metcalf, Ch Supt Denton and DCI Foster were all interviewed by the IOPC under caution in relation to their role in amending officers’ accounts. Mr Metcalf provided a prepared statement to the IOPC and did not answer investigators’ questions, as is his legal right.
In the prepared statement, he explained his rationale in reviewing the accounts was “to keep the statements as factual as possible, to clarify inconsistencies or ambiguities within statements and between other statements, to remove comment and irrelevant or otherwise inadmissible evidence, to tone down intemperate language, and to allow the witness to present the whole of their admissible evidence.” He accepted that in following this rationale he may, on occasion, have inadvertently suggested the removal of some factual content but emphasised this was not his intention. He further stated that his review comments were advice, not instructions. In a later response to the IOPC, he highlighted numerous instances where he had not suggested the removal or amendment of comments that appeared to criticise senior officers or that referenced communication difficulties on the day.
While reiterating that he did not at any point intend to remove any facts from officers’ accounts, Mr Metcalf stated to the IOPC: “I am willing to accept that in a small number of cases my exercise of judgement could be criticised.” The IOPC’s evidence indicates that this significantly underplays his role. At his recommendation, factual information was removed repeatedly, following a consistent pattern: in particular to remove any reference to SYP having previously taken action to control access to the centre pens or close the central tunnel. While it may have been beneficial or desirable to SYP to put forward a set of accounts without inconsistencies, this did not assist with the Taylor Inquiry’s role of understanding how the disaster had occurred.
Ch Supt Denton also exercised his right not to answer investigators’ questions. In a prepared statement provided to the IOPC at the start of the interview, he accepted “full supervisory responsibility” for the amendment process. However, in this statement he said that “amendments of the recollections were undertaken purely to ensure that they complied with the advice of the legal advisors and the requirements of formal witness statements for legal proceedings”.
At the Goldring Inquests, Ch Supt Denton was asked for his views on some of the amendments. He accepted that in a couple of instances, facts had been removed and should not have been but argued that this was the result of errors of judgement and not anything more intentional.
DCI Foster provided a prepared statement to the IOPC and answered investigators’ questions. He confirmed he was the person mostly responsible for implementing amendments to officers’ accounts but consistently stated that he was acting in line with legal advice. When investigators asked him how that applied to the accounts that SYP reviewed and amended in-house, rather than through Hammond Suddards—a review process he had been central to—DCI Foster stated that he was following the broad principles and direction set by the legal team.
