Submit a complaint

Responsibility for the gaps and shortcomings in WMP’s criminal investigation

  1. Taken as a whole, the IOPC’s review of WMP’s criminal investigation found that there was a series of gaps. There were also some decisions made that meant the investigation did not adhere to the standards of the day: notably, the decision to rely on amended officer accounts rather than taking statements. 
     
  2. Unlike when it was gathering evidence for the Taylor Inquiry under the direction of Lord Justice Taylor and his team, WMP had full control over the criminal investigation, including what it investigated and how it did so. WMP also set its own timescales: it was WMP’s decision to set the date of 31 March 1990 for submitting the file of evidence to the DPP. There was no external pressure to complete work by then.
     
  3. WMP of course had substantial experience in conducting criminal investigations. On this basis, it can be assumed that any gaps in the investigation were entirely WMP’s responsibility. More specifically, the responsibility sat with the officers leading the investigation, ACC Jones and D Ch Supt Foster.
     
  4. The IOPC interviewed both officers under caution and asked them about the gaps identified and the decisions made. D Ch Supt Foster accepted that there may have been mistakes in the WMP investigation; in particular, he acknowledged that the decision not to take statements from SYP officers was a mistake. He suggested that if he himself were to review WMP’s investigation in depth, he was certain he would find further aspects he was not happy with. However, he stated categorically that any mistakes were not the result of bias. ACC Jones similarly rejected the allegation of bias. 
     
  5. However, the available evidence does indicate that, throughout its criminal investigation and in particular in the file submitted to the DPP, WMP repeatedly focused on issues around supporter behaviour. Alternative lines of enquiry were not adequately pursued, or evidence revisited as part of the criminal investigation. While the file of evidence fell short of suggesting that supporters had caused the disaster, the consistent theme was that the Taylor Inquiry had underestimated the impact of supporter behaviour—effectively making it a mitigating factor for the failings of SYP. 
     
  6. This echoed the comments made by D Ch Supt Foster in his memo to ACC Jones at the end of the Taylor Inquiry and raises the possibility that WMP—and in particular, these two officers leading WMP’s work—approached the criminal investigation with a fixed pre-existing view of the evidence.
     
  7. The IOPC also found evidence of a couple of instances where it appears WMP may have in some way given SYP preferential treatment, compared to other parties, or shared information with SYP in a way that undermined the independence of its work.