From the Hillsborough disaster to the new investigations

5. The Hillsborough disaster refers to the events at the 1989 FA Cup Semi-Final football match between Liverpool and Nottingham Forest at Hillsborough Stadium in Sheffield. An extreme crush developed in the terraces at the Leppings Lane end of the stadium, resulting in the deaths of 97 Liverpool supporters. In addition, hundreds were injured and thousands left traumatised. 
    
6. A public inquiry led by Lord Justice Peter Taylor (the Taylor Inquiry) was set up to investigate the causes of the disaster and to prevent similar events occurring. On 4 August 1989, Lord Justice Taylor published his Interim Report, setting out his findings on the causes of the disaster. The Interim Report was highly critical of the police operation and of some of the senior officers in the force responsible for the policing of the match, South Yorkshire Police (SYP). It concluded that “the main reason for the disaster was the failure of police control.”
    
7. Lord Justice Taylor also addressed allegations about supporter behaviour that had appeared in some early media coverage, making it clear that in his view, the actions of supporters played no part in the disaster. 
    
8. Despite this, and a series of further inquiries into aspects of the disaster, until the publication of the HIP Report in 2012, there was a widespread public perception that supporters were in some way to blame for what happened. 
    
9. The HIP Report transformed such perceptions, setting out documentary evidence that undermined the allegations about supporter behaviour and drawing attention to how the police acted in the aftermath of the disaster. It also raised important new questions about whether the disaster could have been prevented, and whether a more effective emergency response could have saved more lives. 
    
10. Its impact was immediate. It led to decisions to quash the verdicts of the original inquests into the deaths and to start new inquests, and to launch two substantial new investigations:
     
    • a police-led investigation, known as Operation Resolve, into the disaster and its causes
    • an investigation by the IOPC into police actions in the aftermath of the disaster

About the investigations

11. The role of the HIP had been to oversee maximum disclosure of existing information about the Hillsborough disaster and explain how this information added to public understanding of the disaster and its aftermath. The IOPC and Operation Resolve by contrast were criminal investigations, which could (and did) result in people facing criminal charges. As well as revisiting all the material the HIP had considered, they had the authority to secure new evidence, by interviewing witnesses and suspects, taking statements and conducting or requesting searches. 
     
12. Both investigations were also police disciplinary investigations, addressing: 
     
    • complaints made about the actions of the police in relation to the disaster and its aftermath
    • conduct matters identified by investigators, where police officers may have committed a criminal offence or behaved in a manner which would justify disciplinary proceedings, but there had not been a complaint about the matter
       
13. In addressing this extensive remit, the two investigations examined more material about the disaster and its aftermath than any previous investigation or inquiry.
     
14. Having considered all of this material, the IOPC and Operation Resolve found evidence of fundamental failures by SYP in both the planning for the match and the policing of it, as well as in its response to the disaster. 
     
15. While some of these failures had already been highlighted in previous investigations and inquiries, these investigations found additional evidence that has resulted in a more detailed understanding of what happened on the day and in the aftermath. 
     
16. The evidence examined by Operation Resolve demonstrated persistent failings in police command and coordination on the day of the disaster.
     
17. The IOPC found considerable evidence that SYP adopted a defensive approach to the investigations and inquiries that followed, and sought to control the material submitted to the Taylor Inquiry in an attempt to deflect the blame away from the police. It also found deficiencies and potential evidence of bias in the work of West Midlands Police (WMP), the police force which undertook the original investigations into the disaster and supported the Taylor Inquiry. 
     
18. Like the HIP Report and the new inquests, the IOPC found no evidence to support police accounts which suggested that the behaviour of supporters caused or in any way contributed to the disaster.

The new inquests

19. As well as addressing their terms of reference, both investigations supported the Goldring Inquests and conducted enquiries for them. The Goldring Inquests hearings ran for 308 days, spread over two years, and heard evidence from more than 1,000 individuals. The IOPC and Operation Resolve provided the inquests with more than one million pages of investigative material, such as witness statements and documents, together with hundreds of hours of audio-visual (AV) material.
     
20. The original inquests had returned a verdict of accidental death. At the Goldring Inquests, the jury concluded that those who died in the Hillsborough disaster were unlawfully killed—a momentous change.
     
21. The jury at the Goldring Inquests was also asked to respond to a series of questions about the disaster. One of these was: “Was there any behaviour on the part of football supporters which caused or contributed to the dangerous situation at the Leppings Lane turnstiles?” The jury responded “no”. The jury was then asked if there was any such behaviour which may have caused or contributed to the dangerous situation; again, the answer was “no”. By contrast, the jury answered “yes” to a series of questions about whether there were errors or omissions by police officers in the planning, preparation, decision making and emergency response that caused or contributed to the situation that developed.

Outcomes of the investigations

22. The investigations led to criminal trials of three former SYP officers and two civilians. The police officers were:
     
    • Chief Superintendent David Duckenfield (Ch Supt Duckenfield), the SYP match commander on the day
    • Chief Superintendent Donald Denton (Ch Supt Denton), who was involved in the way SYP prepared evidence for the Taylor Inquiry and oversaw the amendment of fellow officers’ accounts
    • Detective Chief Inspector Alan Foster (DCI Foster), who was directly involved in the amendment of fellow officers’ accounts
       
23. The civilians who faced trial were:
     
    • Graham Mackrell, the Secretary of Sheffield Wednesday Football Club (SWFC), which owned Hillsborough Stadium
    • Peter Metcalf, a solicitor with the firm Hammond Suddards, who advised SYP in the aftermath of the disaster and suggested amendments to officers’ accounts
       
24. None of the police officers was convicted, as explained further in the report, but the Operation Resolve investigation did lead to the conviction of Mr Mackrell for failing to discharge a duty under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 (HSWA 1974).
     
25. In addition, the IOPC and Operation Resolve investigations examined a vast range of issues, including 260 complaints and 92 conduct matters, involving 137 identified former officers and a further 41 who had not been identified. These included officers from SYP and from West Midlands Police (WMP), the police force which undertook the original investigations into the disaster and supported the Taylor Inquiry.
     
26. These complaints and conduct matters have been addressed in 161 separate investigation reports; some conduct reports covered multiple conduct matters, for example where several officers were under investigation for the same issue. Complainants and the officers under investigation have been informed of the outcomes, as have those identified as ‘interested persons’ in any of the individual investigations. 
     
27. The IOPC had the responsibility, under the Police Reform Act 2002, to make the final decisions about these complaints and conduct matters, including those investigated by Operation Resolve.
     
28. However, none of the officers investigated could face disciplinary proceedings, because they had retired before the investigations began. Legislation has now been changed so that retired officers can be subject to disciplinary proceedings.
     
29. The IOPC found that 12 officers (10 from SYP, 2 from WMP) would have had a case to answer for gross misconduct in relation to the disaster and/or its aftermath, if they had still been serving. That means that if a disciplinary panel found the allegations proven, they could have been dismissed. Most of these officers were senior officers and would have had a case to answer on multiple counts: for example, Ch Supt Duckenfield would have faced a case to answer for ten alleged breaches of the Police Disciplinary Code. SYP Chief Constable Peter Wright (CC Wright) would also have faced a case to answer on ten alleged breaches, regarding his actions in the aftermath of the disaster.
     
30. In addition, the IOPC upheld, or found a case to answer for misconduct in, 92 complaints about police actions. 
     
31. The IOPC can only uphold complaints or reach a view that the officer would have had a case to answer for misconduct where the available evidence meets the legal thresholds it must apply. This report includes more details on the outcomes of the complaints and conduct matters investigated. 

Permanent preservation of investigative material

32. Both investigations will transfer all the individual investigation reports, plus the new investigative material that is suitable for permanent preservation to The National Archives, following sensitivity checks. This material will be added to the full, digital copy of the historic Hillsborough archive created by the IOPC to provide a permanent record for future public access.