Submit a complaint

Allegations of a disproportionate focus on alcohol

  1. The IOPC investigated 15 complaints about WMP focusing disproportionately on alcohol, but more than 200 respondents to the witness appeal commented on it. This indicates a widespread perception among Liverpool supporters that questioning around this topic was excessive. One supporter told the IOPC, for instance, that WMP officers “continually asked questions about alcohol things like ‘did we drink on the coach’ ‘did we see anyone else drinking’.” Another commented: “Very quickly I became concerned that the questions they started to ask me were focused on drinking before the game.”
     
  2. When shown the questionnaires completed in their name, several supporters noted the discrepancy between their recollection of the interview and the written record. For example, one said: “although the questionnaire only actually has a few questions about alcohol, it is my clear recollection that they asked me many, many more questions about drinking.”
     
  3. As set out at paragraphs 14.40–14.41, just four questions out of the 54 in the supporters’ questionnaire could be deemed to refer to alcohol and none of these asked supporters if they had drunk alcohol. This raises various possibilities:
     
    • WMP officers went ‘off-script’ and asked additional questions about alcohol, either as a result of instruction or their own perspectives
    • WMP officers made additional efforts to ensure that they asked the questions about alcohol as these were deemed more important
    • due to the sensitivity of the topic, supporters particularly remembered WMP asking questions about alcohol consumption more than any other topic of questioning
       
  4. No WMP officer has said they asked extra questions about alcohol or in any way prioritised asking about this topic.
     
  5. Beyond the questionnaires and statements, there is no written record of what WMP officers asked or what witnesses said. This lack of evidence meant that in most cases it was not possible for the IOPC to uphold complaints about WMP officers focusing disproportionately on alcohol when interviewing supporters. Nonetheless, there remains a clear gap in perceptions between supporters, many of whom (not just those who made a complaint about it) recalled repeated questioning about alcohol consumption, and WMP officers, who suggested it was just another topic they covered.
     
  6. The IOPC asked WMP officers who had been based in the Liverpool office about the briefings they were given and, in particular, whether there were any ‘informal’ instructions to ask about alcohol consumption. With one uncorroborated exception, officers did not recall any such formal or informal instruction.
     
  7. The IOPC’s analysis of the evidence collected by each pair of officers did show that some officers recorded more information about alcohol consumption than others. Similarly, in analysing the responses to the witness appeal, there were some pairs of officers about whom there were more concerns or dissatisfaction, related to asking questions about alcohol. However, there were no pairs of officers who stood out as being subject to substantially more concerns, or as having recorded substantially more information about alcohol consumption.
     
  8. Senior WMP officers have stated to the IOPC that they believe it was appropriate to ask questions about alcohol consumption in the questionnaire. It was identified early as a necessary line of enquiry, particularly given the media coverage which had suggested the level of alcohol consumption among supporters was a factor in the disaster. Furthermore, several of these senior officers have argued that the evidence WMP gathered about this issue helped Lord Justice Taylor to reach the conclusion that it was not a factor.
     
  9. The IOPC fundamentally accepts that, in a set of circumstances where alcohol consumption had been publicly and widely identified within days of the disaster as a potential causative factor, it was necessary to ask supporters about this. However, this would not have extended to asking supporters aggressively or insistently about the subject. 
     
  10. Further, the questions included on the questionnaire appear of limited value in addressing the issue. They offered no insight into whether any alcohol consumption that was witnessed was different from normal. 
     
  11. In short, even though the IOPC has not been able to uphold the specific complaints on the subject, the evidence shows WMP investigated this important topic inappropriately and ineffectively.