The IOPC’s investigation has established that, via the two amendment processes, a total of 327 SYP officers’ accounts were amended. This was 133 more than identified in the HIP Report and amounts to approximately 1 in 4 of all SYP officer accounts relating to the day.
Of these amended accounts, 297 were sent to WMP.
The IOPC analysed all the amendments in depth, including
looking at the amendments thematically
examining how closely the amendments that SYP made as a result of the first amendment process reflected the advice from Hammond Suddards, which in practice in almost every case meant Mr Metcalf
comparing the amendments made in the second review process, conducted wholly by SYP officers, to those made in the first, based on input from Hammond Suddards
In addition, the IOPC re-examined the accounts that were not amended, to establish if any included the kind of content that was removed from or amended in other accounts. This was to assess the consistency and rigour with which the amendment process was applied.
The suggestions provided by Mr Metcalf included the following:
Type of suggestion
Examples drawn from different accounts
Corrections of fact, grammar, spelling, or style.
on the last line of p3, we think the word “not” is a misprint for “riot”.
We think that the quoted serial number 31 is a mistake for 32.
Direct or indirect questions, typically to seek clarification.
We wonder if there is a word missing from paragraph 5 on page 9.
Comment at page 3 as regards lack of discernible comment from match control: is he saying that there were no messages at all, or that there were messages, but they were too distorted to hear?
Suggestions that a particular word or sentence should be amended. Sometimes, Hammond Suddards provided a possible replacement.
I would suggest substitution of the words “extreme urgency” for “panic” on p4.
Suggest remove last sentence
Suggestions that sections should be reconsidered or reviewed.
Insofar as the references to communications difficulties represent comment, rather than part of the narrative, these could perhaps be reviewed.
Suggest he may wish to review the final paragraph.
Observations based on comparisons with other accounts.
Could we check whether the reference to 1.15pm on page 2 should really be to 2.15pm which would be more consistent with the other evidence.
His perception of the crowd position at page 5 do seem at odds with most other officers but, obviously, this should not be altered if it is his clear recollection.
Suggestions that a section could be removed.
Suggest this ends at “…Mexborough”, i.e. first paragraph on page 8.
suggest this ends at off duty on page 3.
Hammond Suddards’ opinion.
We should like him to review his criticism of the briefing so as to ensure that this is not exaggerated (page 1). Bearing in mind that the statement is to be submitted to the Public Enquiry and will be on record as such, he may like the opportunity of reviewing some of the language used, although we would not wish to insist on this being changed if he is happy with it.
I am not particularly happy about the comment on page 4 about the packing of the terraces. I should like to omit this, unless it has already been accepted in the statements of both Murray and Mr Creaser, copies of which I do not have to hand.
The comments received resulted in amendments ranging from changing a single word or phrase (for example, “panic” to “extreme urgency”) to substantial cuts or changes. Some of these were of minimal consequence: for example, in response to the suggestion to end the account at “Mexborough”, three paragraphs were cut. This was the account of a police sergeant who had been on duty: the three paragraphs detailed the officer’s return to his home police station and the response of his colleagues over subsequent days.
In other instances, potentially significant information was removed. The suggestion that an account could end at “off duty on page 3” resulted in the deletion of the following sentence: “At the time of the incident there seemed to be no communication between the officers directly involved on the ground and officers in the control room and no senior officer could be seen to be in charge of directing officers at the Leppings Lane end.” While it could be argued that the first half of this paragraph was comment or speculation—in that the officer said there seemed to be no communication—the second half described what he saw (or didn’t see).
In the accounts that were amended in-house, some of the marked changes were extremely similar to those suggested by Hammond Suddards. For example, on one account the phrase “a sound of panic” was changed to “a sound of urgency”—an almost direct repeat of a wording change cited in the table above.
Of the 327 amended accounts, in 85 cases, the amendments were purely corrections to spelling and grammar or matters of style.
The stated rationale for the review and amendment process was the removal of opinion and comment. Of the 172 suggestions for amendment made by Mr Metcalf, 16 specifically referred to text in the officer’s account being “comment”—thus inferring it should be removed or amended—and others were described as including “hearsay”, “impressions” or in two instances “personal and graphic” recollections.
The amendments SYP made based on these comments frequently went beyond the removal of opinion—for example, deleting aspects of officers’ recollections of events both at the 1989 Semi-Final and at previous games. The amendments also went beyond the correction of information, with changes that removed certain details often altering the meaning of a sentence.
Having established the full extent of the amendments, the IOPC then refined this analysis, looking at the amendments made in relation to six themes, agreed with the CPS as a useful means of analysing them for the purposes of demonstrating to a jury the extent and impact of the amendment process.
Content that referred to communication issues—such as problems with police radios—was amended in 40 accounts (31 on the basis of suggestions from Hammond Suddards). Typically, the amendments involved changing generic comments (for example, that radios weren’t working) to individual ones (that the officer’s radio wasn’t working). However, the IOPC identified at least 80 accounts where comments about communication issues were not amended.
Comments about aspects of police planning and tactics, including pre-match briefings, an apparent shortage of officers and a lack of coordination in the rescue effort were amended in 31 accounts, but left unchanged in 13.
References to the failure of police controloutside Leppings Lane were amended in 29 accounts but not amended in 45. A common theme among the amendments related to the decision not to delay the kick-off.
There were 63 accounts from which criticisms of senior officers and/or police command and control were removed or reworded, typically to remove comments that suggested a lack of leadership or direction. However, the IOPC also identified 49 accounts where criticisms of the senior officers or overall police command and control were not changed.
References to the police having contingency plans to close the tunnel to the centre pens of the West Terrace in the event of overcrowding, or having previously taken action to do so, were removed from all five accounts in which they appeared.
Comments that indicated SYP had any responsibility for monitoring safety in the pens—including any actions to monitor the capacity of the pens at previous matches—were removed from all eight accounts where they appeared.
By reviewing the amendments in detail, the IOPC has established that there was a high degree of consistency between the amendments suggested by Mr Metcalf and those made by the SYP team. The evidence also indicates that particular care was taken to remove references to SYP being responsible for monitoring safety in the pens or taking steps to control access to the centre pens by closing the tunnel. These were potentially pivotal points; if SYP accepted any such responsibility or acknowledged it had previously taken action to close the tunnel, this could indicate that the force had failed to fulfil these responsibilities on the day of the disaster. As is examined in the next chapter, references to both topics were also removed from the written proof of evidence that SYP submitted to the Taylor Inquiry.
The amendments to the accounts and proof of evidence were made after these two topics were discussed in detail in meetings between SYP and its legal team—notably at the meeting on 26 April 1989 referred to in paragraphs 9.84–9.90.
In this meeting, the lawyers and DCC Hayes advocated a position that SYP was not responsible for safety in the pens or controlling access to the tunnel, arguing that no such responsibility was documented anywhere.
However, Ch Supt Mole stated that there was a known contingency among senior officers to close the tunnel when the pens were full—although he subsequently added that it was only a contingency and may never have been used. This appeared to align with the views expressed by CC Wright, in the meeting on 17 April, when he had commented: “you were well aware there were contingencies to deal with the filled stand, i.e. the shutting off of the tunnel.”
While this responsibility was not documented in the Operational Order, in a court case a few years previously, SYP had argued that it should be paid by football clubs for policing matches, because they were undertaking special police services beyond maintaining law and order: namely, taking responsibility for safety on the terraces. In evidence to the court, SYP officers had described how they did this. SYP won the case, known as Harris v Sheffield United. In meetings between SYP and its legal team, there were repeated references to the case; on 26 April, Mr Woodward even read from the case transcript at one point.
It is important to note that in the case, SYP was only seeking payment for policing the normal ‘home’ league and matches of clubs in the South Yorkshire area, not for matches when a stadium was being used as a neutral ground, such as FA Cup semi-finals. This was reflected in the meeting when DCC Hayes noted that the 1989 Semi-Final was not within the contract SYP had with SWFC.
However, when giving evidence in court, none of the officers who testified stated that the responsibility for safety on the terraces only applied to scheduled home games for clubs in South Yorkshire. Further, none of those present at the meeting on 26 April questioned the relevance of the case, or its applicability to the policing of Hillsborough Stadium on the day of the disaster.
Amending accounts to remove references to monitoring safety on the terraces therefore appears a material change to the evidence that SYP officers had given. It meant that SYP presented a more consistent argument to the Taylor Inquiry, but an incomplete one. For example, the amendment to the account of Insp White involved the removal of a 200-word section describing his “practice over the years” to climb the steps of the PCB so that he could monitor the build-up in the pens. The same change removed Insp White’s explanation of some practical considerations around tunnel closure, which included the comment: “Although on rare occasions in the past I have used the gates nearest the concourses to control flow away from the tunnel around to the south pen.”
Insp White was recognised by SYP colleagues as one of the officers with the most experience of policing the Leppings Lane end. This description of how he had monitored the pens and closed the tunnel in the past was simply removed from his account, so the information was not available to WMP or the Taylor Inquiry.
