Submit a complaint

14. WMP’s work for the Taylor Inquiry

What was investigated?

The IOPC’s terms of reference included investigating:
The conduct of officers involved in WMP’s investigations. This will include:

a) the involvement of WMP in the decisions taken about how to gather evidence/obtain witness accounts
b) whether police officers involved in this investigation put inappropriate pressure on any witnesses to alter their accounts or influence the content of those accounts 
c) whether the summaries of evidence WMP presented at the individual inquests were accurate 
d) whether there is any evidence of bias in favour of SYP on the part of those involved in or leading the investigation 
e) whether any accounts provided were deliberately lost, inaccurately recorded, amended, or mishandled (including not following up on key witnesses) 
f) investigating other recorded complaints or conduct matters about the actions of WMP in the gathering or presenting of evidence

WMP’s work in relation to the Hillsborough disaster consisted of several different investigative strands: gathering evidence for the Taylor Inquiry, a criminal investigation, a police disciplinary investigation and supporting the Popper Inquests. WMP’s work had previously received little scrutiny but was subject to numerous complaints. The IOPC therefore conducted a substantial and wide-ranging investigation that considered each of these strands separately. This chapter focuses on the work WMP did for the Taylor Inquiry. 
 

What was found?

• In the weeks after the disaster, WMP interviewed more than 3,800 supporters who had been at the match. This was an extremely challenging task, requiring relatively untrained officers to interview large numbers of severely traumatised witnesses over a short period of time. 

• There were occasions where officers did not show sufficient compassion for witnesses—particularly those under the age of 18—which undoubtedly added to their already considerable distress. However, the evidence, including from supporters and respondents to the IOPC’s witness appeal, indicates that this occurred in a minority of cases only and that, for the most part, WMP officers undertook this work professionally.

• Some of the main criticisms of the WMP officers involved in this task were that they focused excessively on supporters’ alcohol consumption and that they did not record supporters’ accounts accurately. Though the evidence indicates that there were instances where aspects of accounts weren’t recorded accurately, the IOPC did not find evidence that this was a recurring or widespread issue. 

• Many supporters interviewed by WMP recalled being questioned extensively about their alcohol consumption on the day, and about whether other supporters were drinking. However, the questionnaires WMP completed with supporters and statements it took included very few comments about alcohol consumption. 

• Despite the absence of evidence from supporters about alcohol consumption, the officers leading the WMP investigation appear to have reached a view that alcohol was a key factor in the disaster, and that the Taylor Inquiry did not consider it sufficiently. This became apparent in a memo sent from the most senior detective involved, D Ch Supt Foster, to the officer in overall charge of WMP’s work, ACC Jones, after Counsel to the Taylor Inquiry had made his closing comments. 

• WMP did not interview SYP officers to take statements from them for the Taylor Inquiry. It is not clear that WMP ever committed to doing so, but nor is it clear that, as those leading the WMP investigation have claimed, they were instructed by the Taylor Inquiry to simply gather SYP officers’ accounts as evidence for the Inquiry. 

• When WMP senior officers were alerted to the fact that SYP officers’ accounts were being amended—in some cases, significantly—before SYP submitted them, WMP did not take action to check the process or stop it.
 

Significant new evidence 

In investigating the work of WMP, the IOPC had three significant sources of new evidence:

• The policy books of ACC Jones, who led WMP’s work around the disaster. This was a series of 14 physical notebooks into which were attached detailed, chronological records of ACC Jones’s correspondence, telephone calls and meeting notes throughout the investigations. Each entry was numbered, and they appeared to form a continuous record. Some of this material had been previously disclosed to the HIP, and there were other copies of some of the documents elsewhere in the archived material. However, there was also a large volume of material in the policy books that had not previously been considered. 

• The responses to a major witness appeal, conducted by the IOPC in 2013, inviting people who had any contact with WMP during its initial investigation to contact the IOPC and share their accounts and experiences. This was the largest witness appeal ever conducted by the IOPC and was publicised across a range of channels, including national media and local media in Merseyside, South Yorkshire and the West Midlands. It was also publicised by Liverpool Football Club. Some 1,713 people responded, of whom 1,325 said they had some dealings with WMP.

• A set of 165 floppy disks—a digital storage technology used widely in the 1980s and 1990s—relating to the WMP investigation. These were in the South Yorkshire Police Archive, so had been available for review previously; however, they were not examined by the HIP, potentially because they were in a storage format that was no longer widely used. The IOPC employed a specialist company to recover all the material from these floppy disks into a format that could be read by today’s computers. Investigators then reviewed the material. While much of the material duplicated existing documents and records, the process did lead to the discovery of some new information, including correspondence between WMP officers that was not recorded elsewhere. 

In addition, the IOPC took statements from more than 100 former WMP officers who had been involved in different aspects of the force’s work.

 

  1. WMP was the police force responsible for investigating the Hillsborough disaster. Its involvement began on the day after the disaster and continued for almost two years. Its role and responsibilities evolved during this time, meaning WMP ultimately undertook four distinct, though overlapping, strands of work:
     
    • gathering evidence for the Taylor Inquiry from supporters who had been at the Semi-Final, the families of those who died in the disaster, police officers and a range of other witnesses
    • a criminal investigation
    • a police disciplinary investigation, overseen by the PCA, the national body that oversaw complaints against police officers at the time
    • supporting the Popper Inquests
       
  2. Though some aspects of WMP’s work had previously been reviewed through the Stuart-Smith Scrutiny and the Goldring Inquests, the actions of WMP in relation to the disaster had not previously been the subject of a formal investigation. However, the HIP Report raised questions about the adequacy, integrity and professionalism of certain aspects of WMP’s investigations, including that, when interviewing Liverpool supporters in the aftermath of the disaster, officers focused disproportionately on alcohol consumption. Behind these questions was the underlying concern that WMP may have been biased in favour of SYP.
     
  3. Recognising these questions and concerns, in 2012 WMP referred the actions of a small number of its officers to the IOPC for investigation. This referral led the IOPC to make the actions of officers involved in the WMP investigations one of the terms of reference for its independent investigation into the aftermath of the disaster. The IOPC subsequently received 118 complaints about the actions of WMP officers. A clear majority of these were related to the way WMP officers had collected evidence from Liverpool supporters. For example, 46 complaints focused on issues around how WMP recorded evidence and whether they had done so accurately. Fifteen were related to an alleged focus on supporters’ alcohol consumption. Seven covered WMP interviewing those under the age of 18 in an inappropriate way.
     
  4. The IOPC upheld the complaint or found a case to answer in 41 instances.
     
  5. It quickly became clear to the IOPC that examining WMP’s work as a single entity was neither helpful nor appropriate. The different strands of activity overlapped in terms of their timing but had separate aims and involved different officers. Separating the strands of work provided a degree of clarity in assessing the actions of the WMP officers involved against relevant standards. For instance, it made it easier to examine whether WMP conducted its disciplinary investigation to the professional standards that would have applied at the time, regardless of whether its work supporting Dr Popper was sufficient.
     
  6. As well as investigating each strand individually, the IOPC has separated the work into different chapters of this report. This one focuses on the work WMP did for the Taylor Inquiry, covering the period from the day after the disaster, up to the publication of the Taylor Interim Report in August 1989.