Submit a complaint

15. WMP’s criminal investigation into the Hillsborough disaster

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

This chapter focuses on the criminal investigation WMP carried out in relation to the Hillsborough disaster. 
 

What was found?

• WMP completed just 76 actions related to lines of enquiry for the criminal investigation: a very small number for a major manslaughter investigation. 

• Only ten actions were raised in relation to lines of enquiry into the opening of the exit gates at the Leppings Lane end—which the Taylor Interim Report had described as “a blunder of the first magnitude.” Just two of these actions related directly to Gate C and only one of these was completed.

• The IOPC identified 37 potentially key witnesses that WMP did not approach or take statements from as part of its criminal investigation, including SWFC directors, representatives from Eastwood & Partners or SCC employees. All three organisations were under investigation for manslaughter. In addition, it did not initially interview the senior SYP officers who had been on duty.

• Though senior detectives had raised the issue that the SYP officer accounts submitted to the Taylor Inquiry had been amended and were not admissible as evidence for a criminal prosecution, WMP still did not take statements from officers and continued to rely on the SYP accounts. 

• Further, in the file of evidence WMP submitted to the DPP for charging decisions, the lead author specifically highlighted that the accounts were not suitable for a criminal investigation—without acknowledging that WMP alone could have addressed that.

• The file of evidence did not accurately reflect the evidence that WMP had at its disposal. This was particularly notable in relation to the impact of traffic delays on supporters’ arrival times and the claim that there was a “consensus” among local residents that the behaviour of supporters at the 1989 Semi-Final was much worse than it had been at the 1988 game. 

• In the section of the file where D Ch Supt Foster analysed the evidence submitted, he included repeated references to the behaviour of supporters and how much alcohol had been consumed, and indicated this was a mitigating factor in what had happened. 

• When WMP did, belatedly, interview the suspects, the interviews did not meet the expected professional standards of the day.
 

Significant new evidence 

ACC Jones’s policy books were a major source of previously unavailable evidence about WMP’s criminal investigation.

To assist with the review of WMP’s suspect interviews, the IOPC commissioned an expert in police investigative interviewing to review the interview transcripts using a methodology called the Griffiths Question Map. 

 

  1. After the Taylor Interim Report was published on 4 August 1989, strongly criticising SYP, CC Wright asked WMP to undertake a criminal investigation into the disaster. WMP was formally appointed to the task on 16 August 1989, with manslaughter the main offence under consideration. As well as SYP, three other organisations and their staff were under investigation: SWFC, Eastwood & Partners and SCC.
     
  2. On 30 March 1990, WMP submitted a file of evidence to the DPP. This included the analysis by D Ch Supt Foster of whether there was sufficient evidence to justify bringing charges of manslaughter in relation to the disaster.
     
  3. On 30 August 1990, the DPP announced that no criminal charges would be laid against any person or organisation.
     
  4. WMP’s criminal investigation has not previously been re-examined in depth. However, the HIP Report included various observations on the file of evidence WMP had submitted to the DPP—in particular suggesting that it put “the issues of drunkenness and ticketless fans… back on the agenda.” 
     
  5. As part of its wider investigation into the work of WMP, the IOPC sought to re-examine WMP’s criminal investigation. It considered the overall quality and professionalism of the criminal investigation that WMP conducted, comparing it to the standards that would have been expected at the time and assessing whether there was any evidence of bias towards fellow police officers.