Seven SYP officers were interviewed under caution, as was Mr Mackrell. D Supt Taylor led the interview with Mr Mackrell, D Ch Supt Foster led five, and Chief Constable Leslie Sharp of Cumbria Constabulary (CC Sharp) led the interviews of ACC Jackson and Ch Supt Duckenfield. CC Sharp had been appointed to oversee the disciplinary investigation of CC Wright (see paragraphs 7.114–7.119), after CC Dear’s retirement. At the time, it was a requirement of police disciplinary processes that officers should be interviewed by an officer of equal or higher rank. The incoming Chief Constable of WMP was Ron Hadfield who, in his previous role as Chief Constable of Nottinghamshire Police, had attended the match as a spectator. It was therefore agreed that he should not be involved in the investigations.
The IOPC examined the transcripts of these interviews and asked an expert witness—Michael Confrey, a former specialist investigative interview adviser at Greater Manchester Police (GMP)—to do the same. Mr Confrey used a technique called the Griffiths Question Map (GQM) to analyse the interviews. This classifies the questions asked as appropriate/productive, or inappropriate/unproductive.
Questions are deemed inappropriate/unproductive when they are:
closed—these are questions that invite a yes/no answer (clearly, closed questions can be appropriate, but inappropriate ones are poorly timed in the interview, or could elicit more information if they had been asked in an open-ended way)
leading—these are questions that appear to lead the interviewee to a particular answer
based on a forced choice—these are questions where the interviewee is given a limited choice of possible answers
multiple—this is where several questions are asked as one, meaning the interviewee can ‘choose’ which one to answer
opinion statements—this is where no specific question is posed; instead, the interviewer makes a statement and invites the interviewee to agree
No GQM was produced for the interviews with Ch Supt Duckenfield and Supt Greenwood, as both provided a prepared statement to WMP and indicated that they would not answer questions, as was their right. When the interviewers received confirmation of this from Ch Supt Duckenfield and Supt Greenwood, the interviews were promptly terminated and no questions asked.
Mr Confrey found that in each interview, more than two-fifths of the questions asked were inappropriate or unproductive.
The most commonly used category was “leading questions”; Supt Marshall, Supt Murray and ACC Jackson were all asked more than 120 of these in their interviews. For example, in interviewing Supt Marshall, D Ch Supt Foster asked about the build-up of the crowd at the Leppings Lane end. While this was an appropriate topic, the line of questioning restricted the answer. Instead of asking Supt Marshall simply to describe the build-up, D Ch Supt Foster stated: “We have got a situation where there was a considerable build up of supporters that I think you described as as build up quite significantly late on around 2.35pm time”. This had the effect of closing down any potential response Supt Marshall may have given about what happened.
A further recurring issue was the failure of interviewers to follow up on potentially significant information disclosed in the interviews. For example, in his interview Supt Marshall criticised the quality of the pre-match intelligence supplied by Merseyside Police, stating that it left “a lot to be desired”. D Ch Supt Foster did not ask him why he felt that way, what Supt Marshall felt was absent from this intelligence or how improved intelligence could have altered the events that occurred.
In the interview with PC Smith, there was an even more striking example of this failure to follow up potentially significant information. This was during questioning about the allegation that PC Smith pushed supporters back into the pens, without recognising there was a crush. D Ch Supt Foster asked him: “Do you recall pushing people back in at any stage? PC Smith replied: “Yes.”
At this point, D Ch Supt Foster paused the interview, commenting: “Can I just say at the minute I I don't think the officer's too well. Do you want to have a break for a few minutes? The time is 1109. Police Constable Smith isn't well in my opinion at the moment and I would prefer to stop the interview.”
The interview was suspended for around 40 minutes. When it restarted, D Ch Supt Foster changed the subject and asked PC Smith no further questions about this admission.
Overall, the interviews under caution, repeatedly identified in the file of evidence WMP submitted as the critical next step in the criminal investigation, did not add to the evidence already gathered. On 1 August 1990, WMP sent the transcripts to the DPP. Four weeks later, the DPP announced that no one would be charged with a criminal offence in relation to the disaster.
