Officers’ awareness of the amendment process

1. Very few officers recalled being asked to amend their accounts themselves. Instead, most said they were presented with a typed version of the account and asked to read and sign it.
    
2. The majority of officers did sign the amended accounts, effectively giving their approval to the changes. Some stated they did so in full knowledge of what had been changed and why. 
    
3. Other officers stated that they were aware that their accounts had been reviewed but had signed the amended versions without checking them thoroughly. When shown the amended versions, they were surprised at the extent of the changes.
    
4. A further group stated they were not told about the amendments at all before being asked to sign the typed version of their account.
    
5. One such officer was Police Constable Gary Cammock (PC Cammock). A series of handwritten notes on a copy of the fax from Hammond Suddards show that there was some discussion with PC Cammock about proposed amendments to his account (see figure 9E). 
    
6. The first note was dated 7 June 1989 and stated that PC Cammock had been seen and had agreed to the deletion of some swear words, as suggested by Hammond Suddards. However, the note continued: “he is not inclined to alter his criticism of the briefing.” This referred to comments PC Cammock had made about the main briefing given to all SYP officers on duty at 10am on the day of the disaster. He described the microphone system as “next to useless” and said he and others round him “could hear very little of what was actually said.” He added that this led to officers having to check the operational orders “to see exactly what we were supposed to do.” Hammond Suddards had suggested he review this.
    
7. A second note on the same fax was made by DCI Foster on 8 June. It instructed that the account should be retyped as amended. There is no indication that there was any further discussion with PC Cammock before this.

Image

Figure 9E: Notes made by SYP officers regarding the amendment of PC Cammock’s account (Source: SYP Archive)

1. PC Cammock told the IOPC that he did not remember being asked to sign an amended version, nor being spoken to by any senior officers regarding his account. When shown a version of the account with changes marked on it, PC Cammock acknowledged he had initialled the deletion of swear words but stated: “I do not think I would have agreed to that paragraph [regarding the briefing] being removed.”
    
2. Some officers who signed amended accounts have since gone on record to say they were pressured into doing so.
    
3. They described different degrees of pressure being placed on them, ranging from being threatened with transfer or dismissal, to one officer being told that if he didn’t agree to the amendments, his account would not be submitted to the Taylor Inquiry. 
    
4. Two of the officers said that after refusing to accept the amendments, they were sent to see DCI Foster. A third believed he had seen a different senior officer, but DCI Foster separately stated he had made the amendments to this third officer’s account. DCI Foster recalled meeting some officers regarding their accounts but denied putting pressure on them.
    
5. A fourth officer said that he was called in to see Ch Insp Beal and that one of the others who had refused to accept the amendments was there at the same time as him. 
    
6. Ch Insp Beal accepted he “may have been tasked to speak with officers about amending statements” but said this would have been on legal advice. In a later statement to the IOPC, he directly denied having met this fourth officer.
    
7. While the evidence is inconclusive in relation to Ch Insp Beal’s alleged interaction with this fourth officer, Ch Insp Beal accepted—during the Goldring Inquests—that he had been involved in the amendment of a specific set of accounts. These were the accounts of four communications officers who had been in the PCB at the ground on the day of the disaster.
    
8. The amendments to all four accounts were proposed by Mr Metcalf in a fax sent to Ch Supt Denton on 19 May 1989. Mr Metcalf noted that the officers had “slightly different perspectives as to exactly what happened in relation to the communications problems.” He suggested that they should “be seen again to go through their recollections of this crucial period.”
    
9. This only happened in one case, of a civilian communication officer. The other three accounts were amended by Ch Insp Beal, without him contacting the officers who had produced them. None were aware that their accounts had been amended; two felt the changes were minor. The last of the group had more substantial amendments made to his account but told the IOPC that the new text actually clarified the situation.