WMP first used questionnaires in relation to the disaster in the incident information centre (IIC) that it opened on 18 April 1989. This was, in effect, an incident ‘hotline’, based at a WMP police station. On 22 April, ACC Jones recorded in his policy book that witnesses who called the IIC would be asked to answer a questionnaire. This consisted of just nine questions and was effectively a preliminary assessment of whether the caller should be interviewed in person.
By 25 April, WMP had decided that questionnaires would be used more widely in gathering evidence from supporters. A questionnaire was developed consisting of 54 questions, covering topics such as:
whether supporters had been delayed on their journeys to the stadium
the time at which supporters arrived in Sheffield and then at the ground
police direction outside the ground
recollections of entry to the ground and the opening of the gates
police and steward control inside the ground
the crush barrier breaking
One of the main recurring allegations related to WMP’s evidence collection in Merseyside was that officers focused excessively on supporters’ alcohol consumption. The questionnaires used for both Liverpool and Nottingham Forest supporters had three questions that mentioned alcohol or drunkenness.
Did you witness prior to arrival at the ground any other supporters consuming alcohol?
Did you witness any disorder, fighting or drunkenness between your arrival point and the ground?
Did you witness any consumption of alcohol in the ground? If so, briefly explain.
Notably, there was no question directly asking supporters if they had drunk alcohol. Question 9—“Did you stop anywhere en route to the game, if so where and for what purpose?”—could be viewed as an attempt to secure that information.
This stood in stark contrast to the fact that almost 1 in 6 respondents to the IOPC witness appeal reported that WMP officers focused disproportionately on supporters’ alcohol consumption.
Separate questionnaires were developed for use with other categories of witness, including SWFC stewards and turnstile operators, and local residents in the area around the stadium. Several hundred questionnaires were completed with these groups of witnesses. The IOPC did not receive any complaints about WMP’s approach with regard to these.
As well as using questionnaires, WMP’s intention from the start was to take formal statements under Criminal Justice Act rules (CJA statements) from witnesses in certain circumstances. It only submitted witness statements to the Taylor Inquiry; the questionnaires were effectively a screening tool to help determine whether a statement should be taken from the witness. The IOPC has not found any specific document that instructed officers when they should do this. Some WMP officers have indicated that the decision was left to them, when they were interviewing witnesses; others referred to being given specific instructions to take a statement, either as part of the first visit to a witness, or as a follow-up after the questionnaire had been examined. In practice, it seems likely all three applied.
However, it does appear that WMP officers did not always inform witnesses that they were using a questionnaire rather than taking a statement. This was raised by many respondents to the IOPC’s witness appeal who had not been able to find their statement on the HIP’s online document repository.
The IOPC was able to explain this and reassure many of the witnesses. For data protection reasons, the HIP had removed the names of most witnesses before publishing the documents. IOPC investigators had access to the original versions of all statements and questionnaires, which included the names of the witnesses. They could therefore find any statement or questionnaire registered by WMP in the respondent’s name or identify where it had been published by the HIP and send it through. In many cases, this was sufficient, and the witnesses had no further concerns.
