The two investigations were both criminal investigations, meaning they could result in people facing criminal charges—and both did. They were also police disciplinary investigations, which examined whether police officers acted in line with the professional standards of the time (see Appendix B), in planning for the event, on the day of the disaster and in its aftermath.
The two investigations responded to 260 complaints about the actions of the police in relation to the disaster. These ranged from complaints that SYP officers at the stadium failed to respond effectively to the situation that led to the disaster, to complaints about the way WMP officers interviewed supporters in the weeks that followed. Some complaints were discontinued after initial investigative steps were taken. In addition, the investigations identified 92 conduct matters for investigation, some of which involved multiple officers. These were matters 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.
Some of the complaints investigated were first made in 1989. Material cited in the HIP Report raised questions about whether these had been investigated properly, in line with the requirements at the time. The IOPC wanted to reopen these complaints, but legislation did not allow it to reinvestigate matters which had been previously investigated under the oversight of the Police Complaints Authority (PCA), the national body that oversaw complaints against police officers in 1989. The IOPC sought an amendment to the Police Reform Act 2002 (PRA) to make reinvestigation possible. The Police (Complaints and Conduct) Act 2012 added a new section, 28A, to the PRA, giving the IOPC discretionary power in exceptional circumstances to reopen complaints that had been investigated by the PCA.
Each complaint and conduct matter has been investigated in its own right and an individual report has been produced, as part of the statutory process for making decisions relating to alleged misconduct by police officers. (See Appendix C for more details of this process and the role of the IOPC in it.) 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.
In total, the IOPC upheld or found an officer would have had a case to answer (so would have been expected to face disciplinary proceedings) in respect of 92 complaints in relation to police actions before and during the disaster, and in its aftermath. Similarly, it found that in 18 conduct matters, officers would have had a case to answer. In total, the IOPC found that 12 officers would have had a case to answer for gross misconduct, if they had still been serving. That means that if a disciplinary panel agreed, they could have faced dismissal. In a further four complaints, the IOPC found that officers would have had a case for gross misconduct, but it was not possible to identify who the officers involved were.
From the outset, it was understood that no officer would face disciplinary proceedings as a result of the IOPC and Operation Resolve investigations, even if it was found they had a case to answer. This was because they were subject to the legislation in force when the investigations commenced; at that time, officers who were no longer serving with a police force could not be subject to disciplinary proceedings.
Similarly, complaints had to be assessed against the police professional standards at the time of the disaster. These were very different to the standards in place today.
The IOPC can only uphold complaints or find a case to answer for misconduct where the available evidence meets the legal thresholds it must apply.
To be able to uphold a complaint, the IOPC must conclude that, on the balance of probabilities, the force or officer did not deliver the service to a standard that was expected of them.
To give an opinion that there would be a case to answer for a complaint or conduct matter, the IOPC must be of the opinion that there is sufficient evidence upon which a reasonable misconduct panel could conclude there has been a breach of the professional standards that amounts to misconduct.
Reflecting this, the IOPC could not uphold complaints where there was insufficient, contradictory or missing supporting evidence, or where the complaint was made about a decision taken elsewhere. For example, complaints about individual WMP officers using questionnaires to gather information from witnesses could not be upheld, because the decision to gather information in this way was made by others.
The fact that a complaint is not upheld does not challenge the account of the complainant.
