Submit a complaint

16. WMP’s investigation of complaints made against SYP officers

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 police disciplinary investigation WMP carried out in relation to the Hillsborough disaster. 
 

What was found?

• Overall, WMP’s investigation of complaints against SYP officers was broadly in keeping with the professional standards of the time. WMP took relevant investigative actions—more overall than were undertaken for the criminal investigation—and the majority of members of the public contacted by WMP in relation to complaints had no issues with what WMP did. 

• Though WMP recorded more than 3,000 adverse comments about SYP, only 18 complaints were investigated. However, the IOPC has not found evidence to suggest that WMP deliberately sought to minimise the number of complaints it was investigating.

• The allegation that Detective Superintendent Stanley Beechey (D Supt Beechey) was involved in the miscarriages of justice perpetuated by the notorious WMP Serious Crime Squad (SCS) is not correct. His involvement with the SCS was brief and not in an operational role.

• Some witnesses complained to the IOPC that WMP did not allow them to complain about SYP at the time or incorrectly recorded that they did not want to complain. The available evidence around this was inconclusive, but did not suggest it was a recurring or deliberate issue.

• WMP’s reports into complaints about Ch Supt Duckenfield and Supt Murray offered contradictory assessments of their respective responsibilities, despite suggesting that they should be considered together. 

• Though the IOPC has identified some shortcomings in WMP’s complaints investigations, the evidence does not suggest these were the result of bias. Further, it should be emphasised that WMP’s investigation did lead to the PCA recommending that Ch Supt Duckenfield and Supt Murray should face disciplinary proceedings. No such proceedings took place, because Ch Supt Duckenfield retired on medical grounds. 
 

Significant new evidence 

For this strand of the investigation, the IOPC was able to draw on the information contained in ACC Jones’s policy books, which had not previously been considered, and the evidence of CC Sharp of Cumbria Constabulary, who was involved in WMP’s disciplinary investigation. In addition, the IOPC gathered information about the policing career of D Supt Beechey of WMP.

 

  1. In August 1989, at the same time that it took on the criminal investigation, WMP was also asked to undertake a police disciplinary investigation into complaints that had been made against SYP officers, related to the Hillsborough disaster. As part of this task, WMP was also required to investigate any further complaints that were received relating to the disaster.
     
  2. Over a period of around 12 months, WMP investigated 18 complaints about SYP officers. As well as complaints that had already been made to SYP, WMP investigated some complaints it identified after reviewing supporters’ questionnaires and statements. WMP was also involved in investigating three complaints about comments made by CC Wright to a newspaper in February 1990.
     
  3. The fact that no SYP officer was ever disciplined in relation to the disaster has led some to the view that the complaints and conduct investigations were biased, or part of a police cover-up.
     
  4. Furthermore, some respondents to the IOPC’s 2013 witness appeal told the IOPC that in 1989 they had sought to complain to WMP about SYP. However, they felt either that their complaints had not been investigated properly, or that they had in some way been prevented or deterred from complaining. The IOPC received eight complaints to this effect.
     
  5. This chapter addresses these two issues. It examines whether WMP conducted its complaints investigation in line with the standards in place at the time and whether there was any evidence of bias in the handling of complaints.